You are on page 1of 332

What's the Original Wording of Matthew 28:19?

What's the Original Wording of Matthew 28:19? Question: Is the original wording of Matthew 28:19 the

Question: Is the original wording of Matthew 28:19 the same as we have today in our modern Bibles or has it been changed?

Make sure you (the reader) reads all the way through this study for at the end I give substantial evidence and solid proof that we can trust the Bible as we have it today at least the Authorized King James Version (AKJV) as that is the one I used to minister to others and to teach from.

What's the Original Wording of Matthew 28:19? Question: Is the original wording of Matthew 28:19 the

Here are some very interesting documented information I think you will find explosive to say the least. For the readers convenience I have assembled these in alphabetical order:

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

(Note: All of these reference are listed separately in the rest of this research paper and are noted as such that is why I’m only counting this as 1 unit and not the 20 listed here)

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 addition."


a later liturgical

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.-



not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs,



term Trias was

... term Trinity) not found in

first used by Theophilus of Antioch (c AD 180),





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



distinctly liturgical character of the formula


strange; it was not the way of Jesus to

make such formulas





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


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 disciples 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 evidence" 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 cannot 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 whatsoever I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.


Adapted from "A BRIEF CHRONOLOGY OF CHURCH HISTORY FROM 150 AD TO THE SCHISM IN 1054 AD" by Cooper Abrams This is a vital point in studying what is called, "Church History." Much of what is called Church History is in fact not a history of the true church at all, but the workings and organizations which Satan instituted to defeat it or dwarf the effectiveness of the true church in carrying out the Great Commission which is the spreading of the Gospel. Also, it is well to take into account that the word "church" (Greek: ekklesia ek-kay-see') biblically means, "a group of called out believers" or "assembly" of believers. It is never used to refer to a structured organization which rules over believers in various local congregations. Nowhere is the Bible do you find that meaning in reference to the church. In the great majority of the times the word church is used in the New Testament it refers to a "local" assembly of believers. That is important in determining what is a true example of a New Testament church. The New Testament clearly presents the early church as a group of independent small assembles of believers and never as a complicated organization with levels of authority in the form of a system of hierarchy as found today in such groups as Roman Catholicism, Protestantism and many so called "Christian" groups. The local church is presented in the Bible as a local group of believers who are independent and self governing, SOLELY using the Bible as its guide and rule of faith. When there is needed instruction, the church who truly follows the Biblical example, appeals the Scriptures, not to some higher up ranking organizational Bishop, Presbytery, Pope or any man made organization (Note - sda: There is nothing wrong with a group of true believers in organizing and growing as long as there is harmony, common faith and beliefs and that use the Bible as there sole guide. For Moses in wisdom set men over 10, 50, 100, etc to ease the burden of leading [Exodus 18:13-26] God’s people and the Apostles appointed men [Acts 6:1-7] to serve all the working of running the day to day details of the church while the Apostles went about praying and ministry of the word. Now don't get me wrong there are many, many ways in which having an organization can be good in that it helps in uniting the many individual local churches in outreach, ministry of home missions and foreign missions as well as in supporting cost of publishing material for Sunday School, Bible Colleges, and the list goes on but the most important thing to remember and hold to is that no matter the size, large or small, any

organization is just a tool and nothing more and should not become the ruling body of any local church.). It most certainly does not appeal to the writings of past churchmen, established church history, tradition or supposed new revelation. In strictly letting the Holy Scriptures lead in all matters the church lets, God alone, apart from any wisdom or teaching of a man, guide it in truth. From studying church history several things become clear. The organized church as developed into the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Church left the strict use of the Bible as its 'rule of' faith and practice and substituted the "opinions" of church leaders. Also, the church made two other major errors. First, it failed to remain separate from the state and compromised the Word of God. Second, by letting the state "in-mass" convert pagans and bring them into the church without true conversion it polluted the purity of the church. From a Biblical standpoint, even though there were saved people in its ranks, it ceased to be a Scriptural church and God had no part in it. However, one must realize that there were always those who followed the Biblical example of the church and the Gospel and never went into apostasy. These small groups of true believers, as stated earlier in these notes, were only in the limelight when the "organized" church was persecuting them. Some have said the church went into total apostasy, however one must define what is meant by the word "church." If one means the organized church the answer is a resounding, YES, it most definitely went into apostasy. But, if you mean the true churches that followed the Scriptures and was made up of "born again" believers, the answer is an absolute, NO. These believers never went into error. Even today, the majority of the organized churches in no way resemble what the New Testament presents as a true church. God cannot bless error and even though many of these "churches" grow stronger and show signs of truth and have many good works and has various miracles (Note - sda: Having miracles, and blessing in a church or even in an individuals life isn't a sign that they are right with God. Remember God will honor His word whether one is walking in truth or walking in partial truth as those in Matthew 7:21- 24 will testify to that end in final judgment.). Moreover, the true church does exist today, and it does so in the form of local "called out” believers who have joined themselves together for the sole purpose in doing the Will of God. They are using the Bible as their sole 'rule of faith', obey the Scriptures and preach the Biblical Gospel of the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ which is conveyed completely as recorded in Acts 2:38-39. They reject any loyalty to any hierarchy set up my man, or recognized no authority over them, save Jesus Himself as revealed in the Word of God. And this the true church, those who truly follow the commandments of God, will never be destroyed and shall remain a chaste bride unto the time of the Lord Himself, Christ Jesus, comes and takes it unto Himself and there it will remain forever.


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."


A Dictionary of the Bible, Edited by James Hastings, M.A., D.D. Hendrickson Publishers, Inc."

Volume 1

Baptism" IV (a.)

James Hastings indicates:

"The original form of words was ‘into the name of Jesus Christ[1]’ or ‘the Lord Jesus.’ Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."


A History of Christian Though by Otto Heick (1965)

Volume 1

Page 53

“At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit”


A History of the Christian Church by Williston Walker (1947)

Page 58

“The trinitarian baptismal formula… was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ.”


A History of the Christian Church by Williston Walker (1953)[2]

Williston Walker former Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Yale University.

Page 61

Professor and Church historian Walker, reviles the true origin and purpose of Matthew 28:19. This Text is the first man-made Roman Catholic Creed that was the prototype for the later Apocryphal[3] 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."

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)."


A History of the Christian Church by Williston Walker

Page 57-58

Here the author dates the idea that the Holy Spirit is differentiated from Christ from a time early in the second century, He further states, “This appears in the Trinitarian baptism formula, was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ.”


A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 1998.

Some Observations on a Recent Edition of and Introduction to Shem-Tob's "Hebrew Matthew". William L. Petersen, The Pennsylvania State University:

Matt 28:19-20

In Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew, the "Great Commission" becomes: "Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever."


A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 1999.


In this section I consider the short ending of Matthew in Shem-Tob's Hebrew

Matthew and a similar short ending that F. C. Conybeare observed in some manuscripts of Eusebius. Conybeare suggested that the short ending in Eusebius, lacking the Trinitarian baptismal formula, was reflected in Justin Martyr (Dial. 39, 53) and Hermas (Sim. 9.27.4) (see Conybeare 1901). Others have added new evidence for a short ending of Matthew, and this evidence is discussed as well.



Conybeare, F. C. 1901. "The Eusebian Form of the Text Matth. 28, 19." Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 2: 275-288.


The Hebrew text reads instead, "Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I

have commanded you forever."



Black’s Bible Dictionary

“The Trinitarian formula (Matthew 28:19) was a late addition by some reverent Christian mind.”


Britannic Encyclopedia

Volume 3

Page 82

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



Canney’s Encyclopedia of Religions (1970)

Page 53

“Persons were baptized at first ‘in the name of Jesus Christ’… or ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’… Afterwards, with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, they were baptized ‘in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’”

The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of the Trinity Doctrine in the Second Century[4].

Page 83

“The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity in the second century; afterward they were baptized in the name (titles) of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”


Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger[5]:

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.


Christian Institutions by Dean Stanley

“Doubtless the more comprehensive from in which baptism is now everywhere administered in the threefold name… superseded the simpler from of that in the name of the Lord Jesus only.”


Church History by W. W. Walker

Page 57 –58

“The Christian thought at the beginning of the second century the Holy Ghost was differentiated from Christ, but was classified like Him with God. This appears in the Trinitarian baptismal formula, which was displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ (Jesus Christ). The Trinitarian formula was frequently in use by the close of the first and beginning of the second century.”

Page 95

“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.”

Page 127-128

“Finally in 325 A.D., Constantine[6] called a council[7] to try and settle the question over the Godhead, whether there were one or three persons in the Godhead; it was also at this

council that the Trinitarian water baptism formula was finally recognized by the religious world… After the Council of 381[8],[9], [10], held in Constantinople, the Holy Spirit was recognized as being the third person in the Godhead.”


Commentary on Matthew by Lange

Page 558

Here Lange quotes Meyer, an eminent commentator, as follows: “No trace is to be found of the employment of these words (the name [titles] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit) by the Apostolic Church.”



Dictionary of the Apostolic Church by Professor Kirsopp Lake D. D.

Volume 1

Page 29

“There is no doubt that the writer of Acts regarded baptism as the normal means of entry into the Christian Church. There is also no doubt that he represents an early stage of Christian practice in which baptism was ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus’ (or, ‘of Jesus Christ’), not in the triadic formula (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5.)”


Doctrine and Practice of the Early Church by Dr. Stuart G. Hall (1992)[11]

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 the 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 word 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 Derebaptismate (‘On rebaptism’) shows.”



Early Christian Baptism And The Creed. A Study In Anti-Nicene Theology (before the rise of the Trinitarian theory) by Joseph Crehan (1950)

“The observance of the Lord’s command to baptize having now been traced back to the Apostles themselves, it remains to ask what likelihood there is of their having made a change in their own practice. If they had begun with baptism in one name (Jesus Christ) would they ever have been able to change over to baptism in the three…?

It should be evident that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is the original ‘water baptism’ in the New Testament Church. The Bible declares this emphatically, which would be sufficient evidence, but history also declares this great truth. Shall we refuse the Word of God and the facts as recorded by the historians of the past? Until sufficient proof can substantiate otherwise, we are duly compelled to take the revealed truth of this one day.”


Encyclopedia Biblica (1899)

Volume 1

Page 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.”

"This was the formula of the followers of Eunomius (Socr. 5.24)--'for they baptise not

into the trinity, but into the death of Christ.'" (Encyclopedia Biblica, article: Baptism).


Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951)

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 formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and that the Triune formula is a later addition.”

Volume 11

Pages 384 and 389

“The formula used was ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ’ or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the used of the trine name… The earliest from, represented in the Acts, was simple immersion… in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the trine name (Justin)…”


Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (1984)

Edited by Walter A. Elwell PhD in New Testament

Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at Wheaton College Graduate School

Contributors = 287 with 290 Degrees between them.

Subject: Antiochene Theology

Page 60

“Another presbyter, Theodore, later Bishop of Mopsuestia, developed historical criticism much further. He failed to find the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament.”

Subject: Baptism

“Deriving from the Greek baptisma, ‘Baptism’ denotes the action of washing or plunging in water, which from the earliest days (Acts 2:41) has been used as the rite of Christian imitation … there can be no doubt that baptism as we know it begins with the baptism of John. Christ himself, by both precedent (Matt. 3:13) and precept (Matt. 28:19) gives us authority for its observance.”

Page 113

“In essence the action is an extremely simple one, though pregnant with meaning. It consists in a going in or under the baptismal water in the name of Christ (Acts 19:5).”

Subject: Creed, Creeds

Page 283

The Three Creeds:


“Despite its name, the Nicene Creed must be distinguished from the creed of Nicaea (325). This is the third revision from the original creed of Nicaea, each one was more ‘Trinitarian’ then the last one.”



For Christ’ Sake by Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star[12]

Page 103

Here he 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 form the only evidence available (the rest of the New Testament) that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these word (‘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 (A.D. 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.”


From the Book: IF YOU KNOW THIS THINGS by Rev. Ross Drysdale

In the PREFACE page 1 Pastor Drysdale writes:

This book is written as a response to the arguments raised against the Oneness Pentecostal movement and its distinctive doctrines. In particular, I have addressed the charges leveled against us by Dr. Gregory Boyd, in his book, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity, published by Baker Book House.

My book serves as a secondary purpose also, for in it I have endeavored to give a complete exposition of all the major doctrines espoused by Apostolic Pentecostal believers. I have relied upon the Bible as primary source in this endeavor, for it is written, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Is 8:20). I have also used historical facts, early church writings, ecclesiastical history, and quotations from scholars, both Trinitarian and Oneness. In addition to all this, I have also included personal incidents and experiences, which I feel have a bearing on the case.

My heartfelt prayer is that God will cause this book to be an instrument for the conversion of those "outside the message" and an armory of evidence for those within it.

About the Author, page 1 and 2:

A word about Rev. Ross Drysdale: He has been in the ministry for over 30 years, and has pastored the First Pentecostal Church of Inglis for the past twenty-four years. He received his Bachelors Degree in History from Wagner College, Staten Island, New York in 1968. He attained his Master of Arts in German from Jackson State University in 1973. He received his doctorate from Temple Fellowship Institute in California in 1978, and an honorary doctorate in Education from the Organization for Higher Education in 1974. He is a member of three national honor fraternities, Phi Alpha Theta (History), Delta Phi Alpha (German), and Epsilon Delta Chi (Religion). He has taught public school, both elementary and secondary, in New York and Florida and was a co-operating teacher of the College of Education of the University of Florida in 1973. He also served as High School Principal for 10 years. He was licensed as a Professional Counselor in Florida in 1974, and served in that capacity for a year. Rev. Drysdale was ordained in the Spanish United

Pentecostal Church and is currently a licensed minister of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World. Fluent in three languages, Rev. Drysdale evangelizes in both Spanish and English as the Lord directs. He also founded and set in order The First Pentecostal Church of Zambia, Central Africa, an organization consisting of several assemblies dedicated to the Apostolic Truth. He is a published author. His two previous works are "I NEVER SHALL FORGET," the story of his own spiritual odyssey, and "WHAT JEHOVAH SAID" a thorough expose of the Watchtower cult from an Oneness perspective. Rev. Drysdale's radio program, VOICE OF TRUTH, is a popular question and answer broadcast in Central Florida. In his spare time he restores older homes and has won an award for his landscape design. Rev. Drysdale is currently working on another book which will deal with God's divine plan of the ages and its unfolding through the course of human history.

Beginning on Page 85 through 94:




































EARLY CHURCH HISTORY ON JESUS NAME BAPTISM Dr. Boyd is in quite a hurry to sweep church history under the rug in order to get on with his multi-explanations of what "in the Name of" could mean. He unilaterally declares that there is not "one shred of evidence" over the introduction of a new baptismal formula in church history. He remarks that the early church "quibbled" about a good many issues, but the use of the Trinitarian formula was not one of them. Amazing how all these raging Godhead debates and Councils have now been reduced to a "quibble." Putting that aside, let us see if there are any "shreds" of controversy lying around in the dusty tomes of early church history.

CYPRIAN AND JESUS NAME BAPTISM Quite a large controversy erupted in the third century between Cyprian, a theologian of North Africa, and the Bishop of Rome, Stephen. Cyprian insisted that "heretics" who were baptized in Jesus Name be rebaptized in the Trinity. Cyprian set off a controversy that drew in others. Firmillian, Bishop of Caesarea (in Cappadocia) wrote Cyprian and quoted Pope Stephen as saying that anyone baptized in "the name of Christ, immediately obtains the grace of Christ." Cyprian argued back against this saying even Baptism in Jesus Name, performed outside the Catholic Church, was invalid because it had not been administered by the Church's jurisdiction. The Pope stubbornly insisted that baptism in the name of Christ did indeed remit sin. I think an argument that involves these Bishops, on three continents over a number of years and results in a decision from the See of Rome; certainly qualifies as 'Shred" of evidence that there was some ": quibbling going on." (See Cyprian, Epistles, 72.00, A.N.F. V, p.


A TREATISE ON REBAPTISM Further evidence comes from an anonymous document of this time period entitled, "A Treatise on Rebaptism," in which the author (believed to be a Third Century Bishop) argued in favour of the validity of Jesus Name baptism, thus hurling another challenge to Cyprian's view. Apparently the debate was quite ongoing. The author concluded his presentation with the statement: "Heretics who are already baptized in water in the Name of Jesus Christ must only be baptized with the Spirit." (See, A.N.F., V, p.665-78)

AMBROSE AND JESUS NAME BAPTISM In the Fourth Century Ambrose (340-398) argued baptism in Jesus Name was valid, even though it didn't mention "The Name of the Whole Trinity." (See Ambrose, Of the Holy Spirit I, iii, p.43, The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Phillip Schaff, editor).

COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE By 381, tolerance for the original Jesus Name formula came to an end. The Council of Constantinople condemned "Sabellian" baptism (as they called it) and in addition to the "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles" the practice of "one immersion into the death of Christ" was outlawed and the triple immersion in the Trinity was declared the only valid one. (See, A.N.F, VII, p.513) There's more than a shred of controversy going on here. It certainly seems that "two formulas" are locked in battle -- one "in Jesus Name," the other in the name of the Trinity: one, the Trinitarian

formula, is decreed the "winner" by imperial force; the other is outlawed. Why was all this passed over so hastily, if we can be that charitable, by Dr. Boyd? Could it be that the next most logical question to arise would be which formula was the first one? And as Trinitarians have long realized, the answer to that question is fatal to their contention.

EARLY WRITINGS AND JESUS NAME BAPTISM Let’s look at some of the early writings and see if there is something among these "shreds" that could throw light on which was the original formula. The earliest witness we have after the close of the Apostolic writings (which are all unanimous on the Jesus Name formula) is the "Epistle to the Corinthians" by Clement of Rome. This is the next generation after the Apostle John, and what does Clement say of the baptismal formula? He refers to it in these words:

"Every soul over whom his magnificent and holy name has been invoked." A comparison with Acts 15:17 and 22:16 shows this to be an obvious reference to the only name ever so invoked in Apostolic times -- the Name of Jesus (Cyril Richardson, Early Christian Fathers, New York; MacMillan 1970, p. 73).

SHEPHERD OF HERMAS The next early witness we have is "The Shepherd of Hermas" a very popular writing in the early Second Century Church. It was written in Rome (140- 145) by an unknown individual. It was recognized in some churches as scripture and read aloud during the service. Here it is baptism in Jesus Name again and again. He speaks of Christian being saved "through water" and "founded on the word of The Almighty and Glorious Name" (Vis. 3:3); and of those who "wish to be baptized in the Name of the Lord" (Vis. 3:7); and "before a man bears the Name of the Son of God, he is dead" but when they are sealed by baptism "they descend into the water dead and they arise alive" (Sim. 9:16). He speaks of being worthy "to bear his name" (Sim. 9:28); and no one enters into the Kingdom of God without the Name of Jesus, which they must receive (Sim.


DIDACHE The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, is another early Second Century document. It refers to Baptism in this manner: "Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord" (9:5). Another chapter (7:1) also referred to baptism in the "Name of the Lord" but was altered by a copyist who inserted the triune formula instead, and references to "pouring" instead of immersion. That this was a latter mutilation of the text is substantiated by the fact that "pouring" was a much later Catholic innovation. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states that perhaps chapter 7:1 originally read "in the name of the Lord" like chapter 9:5 (vol. 2, p. 378).

IRENAEUS, a famous theologian and early father, who died in 200 A.D., writes: "We are made clean by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord" (A.F.N., I, p.


MARCION who broke away from the Church at this time baptized in Jesus Name and his followers continued to use this formula (see A.N.F., V, p.380).

ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA The "Acts of Paul and Thecla" written by an eastern

Presbyter in the second century also records an account of baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ (see A.N.F., VIII, p. 490). "In the name of Jesus Christ I am baptized on my last day," is one statement that appears there.

RECOGNITION OF CLEMENT The "Recognition of Clement" of late Second Century origin stated: "Jesus instituted baptism by water amongst them, in which they might be absolved of all their sins upon the invocation of his Name" (Recognition 1:39).

JESUS NAME -- THE ORIGINAL FORMULA The early witness of the Church, right after the death of the Apostles, indicates a continued practice of baptism in Jesus Name. It isn't until the time of Justin Martyr that we begin to see another formula, a Triune one, creeping in. In the Second and Third Centuries the two formulas are in use (even as they are today). But it is quite obvious which one is "the new kid on the block." Trinitarian baptism is an unapostolic innovation that eventually replaced the original Jesus Name formula. And that is precisely the reason why unprejudiced scholars and church historians, which we previously cited, are in agreement with our position.

CONTROVERSY ON MATTHEW 28:19Some scholars have even gone so far as to say Matthew 28:19 was a later "interpolation." Professor Harnack dismisses the text almost contemptuously as being "now word of the Lord." (History of Dogma, vol. I, p. 68). Dr. Peake says in Bible Commentary: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words, 'baptizing them into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit' we should probably read simply 'into my Name' " (p. 723).Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, sates under the article, Baptism- Early Christian: "The cumulative evidence of these three lines of criticism (textual, literary and historical) is thus distinctly against the view that Matthew 28:19 represents the exact words of Christ." R.R. Williams concurs: "The command to baptize in Matthew 28:19 is thought to show the influence of a developed doctrine of God verging of Trinitarianism. Early baptism was in the name of Christ" (Theological Workbook of the Bible, p. 29). Black’s Bible Dictionary says: "The Trinitarian Formula (Matthew 28:19) was a late addition by some reverent Christian mind" (article, Baptism).

EUSEBIUS lived between A.D. 264-340. He was a voluminous writer and compiled the earliest history of the ancient Christian Church. He had access to New Testament manuscripts that are much older than the ones we now have. Thus he had the advantage of being much closer to the original writing of Matthew 28:19. Yet he never quoted it in the Triune formula, but in all his citations (which number eighteen or more) he renders the text as: "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations IN MY NAME, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you." Only after Nicaea does he alter this!

CONYBEARE, the church historian, informs us that Eusebius lived virtually in the greatest Christian library of his time, namely that which Origen and Pamphilus had collected at Caesarea, Eusebius' home. In his library, Eusebius must have handled codices of the Gospels older by two hundred years than the earliest uncials that we now have in our libraries. Dr. Westcott says it is owing to the zeal of Eusebius that we know most of what is known of the history of the New Testament. (Westcott, General Survey of the

History of the Canon of the New Testament, p. 108). Certainly, as a witness, he cannot be ignored. Perhaps the most compelling evidence we get from Eusebius is that after his visit to Constantinople and his attendance at the Council of Nicea, he changed his references to Matthew 28:19 and began quoting it in the triune formula! Thus he switched to the Trinitarian rendering immediately after Nicea, with its imperial threats of banishment to all who reject the newly officialized Trinity doctrine. Hew never knew or quoted any other form but the "My name" rendition until his visit to Nicea. Discretion appears to be the better part of valor in his case!

MATTHEW 28:19 AND ONENESS ADVOCATES Let it be pointed out that the UPCI and other Oneness organizations have no quarrel with Matthew 28:19 as it is found in the Authorized Version. Indeed, it forms an indispensable scriptural link in our revelation, not only of Baptism, but of the Godhead also. For if the Name is one, the person is one. We have shown previously how a complete and enlightening reconciliation of Matthew 28:19 with the passages in Acts is possible, not only from an Oneness perspective, but from a Trinitarian one as well. We have included the textual discussion of Matthew 28:19 and the related witness of Eusebius simply to make the discussion complete and to expose our readers to this facet of the question. I know of no Oneness organization that endorses any other reading of Matthew 28:19 than what we have in the Textus Receptus. However, facts are facts and stubborn things at that, for they refuse to go away. Perhaps archaeology or Biblical Research will yield more light on this interesting phase of the discussion in the future. The beauty of the Oneness position is that regardless of which rendering of Matthew 28:19 is the correct one; the conclusion is still the same -- baptism in Jesus Name. For to us, and the Apostles, Christ's reference to "the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" was just a longer way of saying "my name." When people finally realize this, the textual conflict may resolve itself almost automatically. For Christ may have uttered both statements on that mountain long ago.

TRINITARIAN VARIATIONS Trinitarian scholars themselves come up with no less than four different methods of reconciling Matthew 28:19 with the passages in Acts, resulting in a literal use of the name of Jesus Christ in baptism today. None of these men believe in the Oneness, but all of them advocate baptism in Jesus Name as the proper way to obey Christ's command in the last chapter of Matthew. We shall review them briefly with the understanding that they are being set forth as additional testimony. None of these four "reconciliation’s" is official Oneness doctrine, and their mention here does not imply endorsement. However, they all possess merit to some degree and are certainly worth our time.

THE NAME OF THE LORD METHOD This is perhaps the oldest explanation for Baptism in Jesus Name in modern times. It even preceded the revelation given in 1913 in California. William Phillips Hall popularized it in his book "Remarkable Biblical Discovery" or "The Name of God According to the Scriptures." This book was originally published by the American Tract Society, and has been republished in abridged form by the Pentecostal Publishing House. The author was a brilliant scholar, studied both Hebrew and Greek, and was well esteemed by Bible Teachers of his day. His book received excellent reviews at the time of publication, and is quoted still. Hall feels his

views about the baptismal formula being in Jesus Name were "imparted to him by the Glorified Lord Jesus Christ" (Remarkable Biblical Discovery, P.P.H., St. Louis, 1951, p. 5). Basically, the reconciliation is accomplished as follows: The Name of the Father is Lord (Mark 12:29-30, Is. 42:8), the name of the Son is Lord (Acts 2:36, 1 Cor 8:6), and the Name of the Holy Spirit is Lord (2 Cor. 3:17). Hence, the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is Lord. But this name can only be used in conjunction with the name of Jesus Christ, who is the one mediator and the only way to God. Hence, the apostles always used the full expression "Lord Jesus Christ" which combined the Name of the Godhead (Lord) with that of the mediator (Jesus Christ). See for example 1 Cor. 5:4, 2 Cor. 11:31, Acts 20:21, Acts 16:31, etc. Hall does a remarkable piece of research proofing that the original baptismal formula in Acts was consistently "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" according to the most ancient manuscripts and sources. The references we have today (Lord Jesus, Jesus Christ, Lord) are abbreviated forms of the original full name -- Lord Jesus Christ.

NAME OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST METHOD This interpretation was also used occasionally by Oneness expositors in the early days of the Movement. It is only rarely heard in Oneness circles today, but is popular among some Trinitarians. While visiting a very large Trinitarian church in Texas, I purchased the book entitled "The Name of God" by Kevin Conner, published by the author. It was being sold in their bookstore at the time and highly recommended. Rev. Conner’s book carries an endorsement by Rev. K.R. Iverson, Pastor of Bible Temple in Portland, Oregon, a Trinitarian church. The basic explanation is this: The Name of the Father is Lord (Luke 10:21, Is. 42:8), the Name of the Son is Jesus (Matthew 1:21), the Name of the Holy Spirit is Christ (Col. 1:27); thus the one name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is Lord Jesus Christ (Conner, p. 115- 116). And, of course, he reaches same conclusions as Hall, namely that the original baptismal formula texts in Acts are all "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." James Lee Beall, Pastor of Bethesda Temple in Detroit, Michigan, espouses the exact same interpretation in his book "Rise to Newness of Life" on pages 60-61, (Rise to Newness of Life, James Lee Beall, Evangel Press, Detroit, Michigan). Pastor Beall is also a Trinitarian and well known Bible teacher and author. He also baptizes in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

GODHEAD NAME METHOD Basically this method teaches that seeing the "fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Jesus Christ" then his name must be the name of the Godhead. In other words, in the Trinitarian scheme of things the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are revealed and manifested in the second person Christ; therefore his name is also the name, which reveals and manifests all three persons. In her book "The Exalted Name" Lucy Knott stated: "In the Lord Jesus Christ dwelleth all the Fullness of the Godhead bodily. The Exalted Name must needs show forth the Father and the Spirit as well as the Son. While the Son bears the exalted name, the Father and Spirit are equally exalted for they are all one in essence" (The Exalted Name, Lucy Knott, Nazarene Publishing House, Kansas City, Missouri 1937, p. 226-227).

DISPENSATIONAL METHOD In response to a question on the correct baptismal

formula, Dr ..

Pettingill, in his book "Bible Questions Answered," let loose yet another

interpretation that results in a Jesus Name baptismal formula. This one is by far the most unusual, but it apparently satisfied the good Doctor, who was a firm believer in Baptism in Jesus Name. He basically argues, from an extreme dispensational point of view, that the Matthew 28:19 command is part of the Gospel of the Kingdom. He therefore calls it

the "Kingdom Commission." Furthermore he adds: "of course, we are well aware that it is often spoken of as the Great Commission of the Church, but we are convinced that this is an error.” He feels Matthew is "Kingdom" territory and does not apply to the Church Age, but will take effect only after Christ returns. To prove this he says: "Let it be observed also that the baptisms of the Acts are not 'into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' but rather 'into the name of the Lord Jesus' (Acts 2:38, 8:16,





Name of the Lord Jesus is in this day and dispensation the name

which is above every name, and whatsoever we do in word or deed is to be done in the

Name of the Lord Jesus


(William L. Pettingill, D.D., Zondervan Publishing House,

... Grand Rapids, 1973, p. 106-107). The subconscious desire of Trinitarians to conform to the obvious pattern of Jesus Name Baptism in the Acts of the Apostles, coupled with their unwillingness to part with their Trinitarian Theology has led to this brood of hybrid and novel attempts at reconciliation. Though there is merit in all of them, and much merit in some of them, the simple explanation of our Lord (John 5:43, 14:26) as to what constitutes the one Name of the father, Son and Holy Ghost is to be preferred. And it is that light which is shining brightly in the Oneness movement, which is now encircling the globe in preparation for the return of our Great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ!

MAGICAL INCANTATION OR BIBLICAL INVOCATION? In his final attempt to discredit those of us who "in every place call upon the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord,” he resurrects an old charge that "magic" and pagan "incantations" designed to manipulate God. That a 20th Century Christian would find common cause with first and second century heathens in opposing the invocation of Jesus name is as startling as it is revolting! On page 144 Dr. Boyd compares our invocation to a "magical formula said during an act." He feels it presents a "return to a form of paganism in which it is believed that deities can be manipulated to behave in certain ways by the utilization of certain incantations and formulas invoked by devotees" (p. 145). "Magical incantations upon which God's forgiveness rests" is how he characterizes our doctrine of "in the name of Jesus." How well does that sit with the thousands, yea millions, of Christians, who over the centuries have sent their earnest petitions heavenward "in Jesus Name?" How would the humble Christian mother, praying for the healing of her suffering child "in Jesus' Name," feel when informed by Dr. Boyd that her use of the "name above every name" was a "pagan incantation," and that what she thought was "faith in that name" was actually an attempt at "manipulating the deity!" And what shall we say of that "Magician" Peter who "verbally" repeated His Jesus Name "incantation" at the Gate Beautiful and "manipulated" the Deity to such an extent that the lame man immediately received strength in his feet and ankle bones and was healed! He himself was so happy with this "incantation" that he went leaping and walking and praising God. Peter's explanation for "verbally" using the name of Jesus differs somewhat from Dr. Boyd's explanation. For when those first century haters of the "formula" asked him: "By what power or by what name" have ye done this, his response was: "ye rulers of the people and elders of Israel, if we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is

made whole: Be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand before you whole" (Acts 4:7-10). That was Peter's explanation of both his "magic trick" and his "incantation!" John Wesley's converts were once accused by a detractor of suffering from "epileptic fits." IN this way he "explained" away the spiritual manifestations occurring in Wesley’s enthusiastic meetings. Wesley's answer was: "Epilepsy? Sinners are converted, backsliders return, doubters are convinced, drunks become sober, and thieves become honest workingmen! If this be epilepsy then I say, Roll On, thou Mighty Epilepsy, Roll On.” So if our use of Jesus Name be magic, then I would say in the tradition of Wesley, "Roll On thou mighty Magic, Roll on!"

TERTULLIAN ANSWERS DR. BOYD'S CHARGE Tertullian faced the same charges in the early Christian Church from pagans, who viewed Christian Baptism as an attempt to gain eternal life through "incanting" of a few words and a ritual bath in water. Anyone who sees only that in Christian baptism, or any other invocation of His Name, has very myopic vision indeed! And unfortunately, Dr. Boyd shares the same viewpoint concerning our Baptism in Jesus Name as those early pagans espoused, and the same answer Tertullian gave is still applicable: "Yet what a miserable incredulity is this which leads you to deny to God His special properties" (Simplicity With Power, Tertullian, de Baptism, p.2). Jesus Christ forever negated the charge leveled against our use of the name, by Dr. Boyd and others, when he said: "If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it" (John 14:14). If that's "incantation" and "manipulation" so be it! More on this so- called "magic" formula is brought out in John 16:24: "Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full." We ask "in His Name" and our joy is quite full. Christ had just previously defined the nature of this "incantation -- manipulation" so called, when he said in verse 23 "Whatsoever ye shall as the father My Name, He will give it to you." Dr. Boyd's argument therefore is not wit us, but with the Father!

TRINITARIAN GNOSTIC INCANTATION If Dr. Boyd is serious about his aversion to "pagan incantations" in Christianity; he doesn't have to look any further than his own Trinitarian faith. For the Nicene Creed, which is "incanted" in many Trinitarian churches as part of the liturgy, has a Gnostic pagan phrase at its heart! I quote from "The Heretics" by Walter Nigg. Commenting on the phrase, "one in essence with the Father," in the Nicene Creed, he writes: of course, this had the defect of having been originally a gnostic phrase, and one which had no precedence in the Bible." (p. 127). What logic is it that would bind on all Christendom a pagan gnostic phrase, repeated continually in a creed; and yet at the same time ridicule the verbal invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, calling it "pagan magic?" Why would anyone want to put himself in the same class as that bitter Christ-hating Sanhedrin which ordered Peter "not to speak at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus" (See Acts 4:18)? That's the real intent of all this nonsensical twaddle about "magic" And "incantation" and "manipulation." It's the same Spirit that fuels their "no baptismal formula" heresy. It is an outright and disgusting attempt to silence the Name of Jesus from being verbally uttered. The devils of Hell couldn't be more pleased! And there can be no doubt as to who the real author of this theory is! Our response is the same as Peter's and John's, "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you

more than God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:19-20). We too have a creed, but it doesn't come from the Gnostics, it comes from the Paul: "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" (Col. 3:17).

DR. KITTEL'S FINAL WORD In G. Kittel's "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,” p. 255, he writes concerning the expression "calling on the Name": "The Hebrews expression 'calling on the name of the Lord' originally signified 'To invoke the deity with the Name Yahweh' and still bears traces of a magical constraint which can be

exercised by utterance of the Name

In the Old Testament, of course, the invocation

and the magical

... bears the weaker sense of 'calling on Yahweh' i.e., worshipping him

... notion disappears. Indeed, misusing the Name of God in magic and incantation is

expressly forbidden in the Decalogue

Yahweh refuses to be conjured up by the

... utterance of his name. He promises his coming at the appointed shrines when he is called

upon there

Thus the Name of Yahweh is not an instrument of magic; it is a gift of

... revelation. This does not rule out the fact that uttering or calling on Yahweh's name

implies faith in his Power


Oneness position exactly! JESUS SAID: "I AM COME

(JOHN 5:43). THIS IS






TOYING WITH GREEK In a desperate attempt to stifle discussion on Baptism in Jesus Name, certain Trinitarians of late have taken to using the Greek in their argument. Though their error has been corrected repeatedly in the past, they will not cease employing it. These "lower lights" keep burning, but they send no gleam of truth "across the waves." Their basic contention is that the Greek expression rendered "in the name" in Matt 28:19, is different from the Greek expression in Acts 2:38, which is also translated into English as "in the name." Thus they contend that Matt 28:19 actually says to be baptized "into" the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, whereas Peter's command is merely to be baptized "in" the name of Jesus. Peter's words are thus interpreted to only mean "by the authority of Jesus," while Christ's words are said to be the actual formula. Of course, any reputable Greek scholar would inform them that there is no difference between the two expressions; they are equivalent to each other. But if these so-called "Masters of Greek" had done their homework, they would have found that Paul commanded the Ephesian disciples to be baptized "into" the name of the Lord Jesus in Acts 16:6. The exact same Greek expression is used here as in Matt 28:19, "into the name." This collapses their quibble entirely, and they should apologize to their reading public. They are without excuse, because John Paterson pointed this out to them in his book, The Real Truth about Baptism in Jesus Name, away back in 1950. Did they think enough time had elapsed and it was safe to turn this thrice-resuscitated argument loose on

their unsuspecting readers yet again? One can only hope that the lid is finally nailed shut on this nonsense. WHEN THE ORIGINAL GREEK OF THE BIBLE IS PROPERLY ANALYZED, IT PROVES BAPTISM "INTO THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST" WAS THE ORIGINAL AND ONLY FORMULA.

PERSONAL INCIDENTSI realize that subjective personal, experiences, no matter how spectacular, cannot replace the Word of God as a doctrinal guide. However, such experiences, when supported by clear Biblical precedent, should be taken into consideration as corroborating evidence. Having established the scriptural veracity of Baptism in Jesus' Name, I would now like to recount two remarkable incidents which occurred in my ministry relative to the doctrine in question.

DIVINE GUIDANCE FOR JEANNE FOWLER In the summer of 1976, I was teaching my Sunday School Class when a very frail woman entered the church and staggered down the aisle. She seated herself near the front of the church and waited patiently for the lesson to end. Finally she raised her hand, apologizing for taking up my time, and requested to say something. The woman seemed to be in earnest about something, so I consented. She informed me that she had cancer and could only live a few more weeks. She was greatly concerned about her soul and had been repenting and asked God to forgive her. She had read where you needed to be baptized to be saved in Mark 16:16 and so had packed a change of clothes, and with great physical effort, had driven to a nearby church. She mentioned the name of the Church and I recognized it as a local Trinitarian assembly. She continued with her story and told how she had entered the church and asked the pastor to baptize her. He agreed to do this after the service, and instructed her to be seated and join them in worship. Then something remarkable happened. While seated in that Trinitarian church she heard the Lord speak to her very clearly and distinctly. He said to get up and leave the service at once, because they could not baptize her correctly there, and she must go somewhere else. Startled, but obedient, she quietly slipped out. She drove her car, not knowing where to go next. When she came near by church the same voice of the Lord told her to stop and go in and request baptism, for here she would be baptized in the proper way. As we sat and listened to her most unusual story, a holy awe settled over the congregation. I myself was astonished at such an amazing recitation. But more was to come. With genuine sincerity in her eyes she looked at me and asked:

"Pastor, what is the difference between your baptism and that other church's? God would not let me be baptized there and I want to know why?" I explained that even though we both immersed candidates in water, our church did it in Jesus Name, which is the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. The other church merely repeated the titles without mentioning the name. She readily saw this truth and then realized why God had led her to our church. "IN all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee" (Exodus 20:24). I baptized her in Jesus Name for the remission of sins. Shortly after that she passed on to her reward. I am confident that at this very moment as I write her testimony and her face comes up before me in memory, she is in heaven worshipping the One-Personal God, our Lord Jesus Christ, whose Name she took on in baptism.

was attending a Pentecostal convention in Houston. I met a young man who needed a job. I knew of an employment opportunity in Galveston and agreed to drive him there. I thought it would be a good opportunity to witness to him. On the way he began to speak in a very disjointed and incoherent fashion. He claimed to be able to understand the speech of animals and to get "revelations" from them. He asked me if that was of God. I told him he had a demon. He tried to flee the car but we were on a high bridge by this time and I refused to stop. When we got to Galveston, about midnight, I stopped the car alongside their famous sea wall. We both got out. I told him he was demon possessed and needed to be delivered. He agreed and fell down at my feet sobbing and holding me fast by the ankles so I could not leave. I began rebuking the spirit that was in him. The few remaining tourists that straggled past us that night gave us a wide berth! I'm sure it presented quite a sight. The spirit came out of him and a great calm swept over him. I knew there had been a change. Next I led him in a prayer of repentance as he turned his life over to Christ. His next remark caught me by surprise. He said: "Shouldn't I be baptized?" I responded affirmatively, but told him I did not have a church in this city and therefore had no access to a baptistery. He pointed to the vast Gulf of Mexico that stretched before us on all sides, and like the Ethiopian of old, he asked why this would not be sufficient. (Acts 8:36). Somewhat embarrasses for not having realized what a mighty "baptistery" God had provided us, I told him it was indeed sufficient. There was no one on the beach at this late hour and the tide was coming in. In the moonlight I caught a glimpse of his shirt. It had a satanic symbol on it! I told him I could not baptize him with such an evil sign on him. He agreed and took the shirt off and threw it on the sand. We proceeded into the water and I immersed him in the saving name of Jesus. As he came out of the water he began speaking in tongues! What a wonderful time we had! When we returned to the shore, the shirt was not at the spot we had left it. It had completely disappeared. IN its place lay a clean new white towel neatly folded, soft and dry. Just as if an angel had brought it down for him. He used it to dry off with, and both of us were convinced this was a miraculous sign from God: "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away, behold, all things are become new" (1 Corinthians 5:17). And this apparently includes Tee-shirts (at least in this case anyhow). We separated, but several months later I received a letter from him: Dear Brother Ross, I am in Chicago now. I have no place to live and I walk the streets looking for work. But I know God is with me. The wind here blows very cold sometimes, but I don't mind. I just pray to God and talk to him in unknown tongues, just like I did in the Gulf that night, then I feel so much better. I know he is with me. Your brother, Joey Later the same young man came to Florida and confirmed his testimony before my entire congregation. Multiplied thousands of people around the world could add their testimonies to these two, as top how God led them into this remarkable truth of the one true name of God, revealed in water baptism. Soon the whole world will believe nothing else! "And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord of Hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered; and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass t pass out of the land. And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day there shall be one Lord, and his name One." (Zech. 13:2; 14:9). THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES AROUND THE WORLD HAVE CONTRIBUTED THEIR PERSONAL TESTIMONIES OF HOW THE LORD REVEALED TO THEM THE TRUE BIBLE BAPTISM IN JESUS NAME. THESE


Pages 111 through 125



























































A CHALLENGE TO ONENESS Dr. Boyd throws out a challenge to Oneness believers concerning the question of the Pre-existence of the Son of God. He cites a number of texts from John's Gospel, Paul's writings, and the epistle to the Hebrews, which seems to teach a Pre-existence of Christ as Son. Dr. Boyd then asks, "How does Oneness Theology handle these texts?" (Boyd, p. 37). It is an honest question, and deserves a comprehensive answer. In this chapter we shall provide it.

DID THE SON OF GOD PRE-EXIST? To the question whether the Son of God pre-

existed, the Bible answer is yes. He did Pre-exist. But how? In Two ways. We shall first look at his Pre-existence in the Foreknowledge of God.

IDEAL PRE-EXISTENCE God is not bound by the limits of time as we are. We think and operate in terms of past, present and future. God is an eternal Present. He calls "those things which be not, as though they were" (Rom 4:17). Thus in God's mind or plan, the Son of God "existed" countless ages before He was ever born of Mary. He had "existence" in God's foreknowledge. In fact, the crucifixion is spoken of as having occurred before the "foundation of the world." (Rev 13:8). How could "the lamb" be

"slain from the foundation of the world?" In God's mind and foreknowledge! Even the Church is said to have existed in God's mind "before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4-5). We Christians are said to have been given grace "before the world began" (1 Tim. 1:9). This occurred in God's mind. In actuality we were not given grace until we responded to the Gospel call. So also it is with the Son. He existed in God's mind, long before His birth took place. "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with

corruptible things



with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish

and without spot: who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you" (1 Peter 1:18-20). The Son of God was foreordained in the mind of God, but did not take actual existence, or become manifest, until these last times. The Son's idealistic existence was in God's mind from all eternity. His actual existence in time however is pin pointed for us in scripture. Gal 4:4 But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, The Son's actual existence began when He was born of a woman, and this agrees with Luke 1:35. The Bible says in two places that the Son was "made". One is here in Gal. 4:4, where he is said to be made of a woman. The other is in Hebrews 2:9: Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels If the Son is "made" how could he be eternal?

PRE-EXISTENCE AS "THE WORD OF GOD” The idea of the Son existing "ideally" in the mind of God does explain a number of texts, especially those I have cited. However there are also a number of scriptures that speak of Christ in the Old Testament that cannot

be explained on this basis. We read of God "who created all things by Jesus Christ" (Eph.

3:9); and God who "hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son

by whom also he

... made the worlds " (Heb. 1:2); and Christ Himself speaks of the glory He had with the Father "before the world was" (John 17:5). The answer to these texts lie in the scripturally revealed fact that the Son of God did Pre-exist, but not as the Son of God, for that would be the same as having a Pre-existed male human being. No, the Son Pre- existed as "the Word of God" ("the Logos" in Greek). He, who was the Word of God in the Old Testament, became the Son of God in the New Testament. The Son of God, the male person born of Mary, did not pre-exist as a Son, per se. That would mean a pre- existent human being. But that does not negate the fact the He who was the Son of God in His earthly sojourn, had existed before in a different form!

THE MYSTERY OF THE LOGOS John speaks of the Word (Logos in Greek) who was "in the beginning with God" and yet "was God." What was the Logos, or the Word of God? As we have seen, the Son of God was God's visible body, form, or Temple in the

New Testament times. God dwelt in Christ His Son and used Him as His own body. Whoever saw Christ saw the Father, for God was in Christ. The Bible also teaches that God had a visible body or form in Old Testament times as well. It was not a human body of flesh, but it was a glorified body. And just as God dwelt in the human body of the Son of God after Bethlehem, so also did he dwell in the celestial body of the Word of God before Bethlehem. Whether in the Old Testament as the Word of God or in the New Testament as the Son of God, Christ has always been the visible Temple of the invisible Spirit. An Oneness "God in Christ" exists in both Testaments.

THE VOICE OF THE LORD The glorious "Word" was the body God used when he "walked" with Adam and Eve in the cool of the evening. Naturally He would have to use some form or body to fellowship with them. They couldn't "walk" with an omnipresent Spirit! Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. The "Voice of the Lord" is the same as "the Word of God". It was God's vehicle of visual communication with His creation.

"THE BODY OF HEAVEN” In the time of Moses, the Elders of Israel were given a view of the Logos. Ex. 24:10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. They could not have seen God in his Spirit nature, for a Spirit is necessarily invisible. Yet they saw God's feet, and described his visible form as the "body of heaven." God has only had two bodies. In the Old Testament times it was the Body of Heaven, but in the New Testament times it was the Body of Humiliation (Phil. 2:8), which the world crucified and pierced!

"THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD” The Word of God was God's visible image in the Old Testament times. He was the "brightness of his glory and the express image of his person" (Heb. 1:3). He was the "image of the invisible God and the firstborn of every creature" (Col. 1:15). When men saw Him they saw God: Gen 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. Did he see God as Spirit? Of course not. A Spirit doesn't have a "face". What he saw was the Word, who was God's visible image and as such did have a "face."

"THE FORM OF GOD” God had a visible form in the Old Testament times. Jesus spoke of God's "shape" as well as His "voice" (John 5:37). Paul mentions the "form of God" in Philip. 2:6. A pagan king once saw the "form" that was "like" the Son of God (Daniel 3:25). This "form" was the "Word of God." This "form of God" was later changed into the "form of Man" at the Incarnation for the purpose of redemption (Phil. 2:2-8).

THE WORD WAS WITH GOD, AND WAS GOD Now we understand the meaning of John's prologue. The Word, or God's visible form, was "with God," just as our "bodies" are "with us" wherever we are. And yet the Word "was God." Because God dwelt in that "form," used it as His visible Temple, it can be said that the Word "was God." Wherever this Form appeared, it was God Himself appearing. The same situation obtains in the New Testament dispensation. Christ, the Son of God is also God's body or form. The

Father is said to be "with" Christ (John 8:29), and also to be "in" Him (John 10:38), and Christ is thereby said to be God (John 20:28). Whoever saw Christ saw God (John 14:8- 10). God in Christ makes Christ God. God in the Word, made the Word God. It was the "voice" of God, speaking out of his "shape" or visible image (John 5:37) that said: "Let there be light, and there was light." This is how the worlds were created by the Word of God (Heb. 11:3). Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. God’s glorious visible Form, the Word or Logos, spoke and creation resulted. John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. And this Word was eventually changed into flesh and became the "Son of God". "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14).

JOHN PATERSON COMMENTS John Paterson was one of the most insightful writers on Oneness topics. His early work, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ," was used as a Godhead textbook in the infancy of the Oneness Movement. He summarized the doctrine of the Logos in very clear and logical terminology. He writes: "How did God show Himself to Abraham, eating and drinking before him? (Gen. 18:6-8,33); or How did Moses see his back parts? (Ex 33:23), or how did the elders of Israel see the God of Israel, and did eat and drink? (Ex. 24:10,11). In the answer to these questions lies the secret of the Mystery of God: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made' (John 1:1-3). In the beginning! That refers to Genesis 1:1, which reads, 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' "Now what is a 'word'? Is it not the expression of an inward abstract thought in a substantial concrete form. It means this in English, but as a matter of fact, the Greek word Logos means not only the expression of the thought, but also the inward thought itself. So we conclude that the Word was the visible expression of the invisible God; in other words, the invisible God embodied in visible form; and not only this, but the word was, essentially nothing less than the Eternal God Himself, as it is written 'The Word was God' " (John 1:1). (John Paterson, God in Christ Jesus, p. 9-10).

THE ANGEL OF THE LORD The Pre-Incarnate Christ also appeared frequently in the Old Testament times as the Jehovah Angel, or Angel of the Lord in the KJV. The Angel of the Lord was none other than the Word of God. He was the Form or Image of the Invisible God, which we have already discussed. The "body of heaven" which Moses and the elders of Israel saw, the Logos or Word of God, was none other than the glorious Angel of Jehovah. In the Old Testament dispensation the invisible God was embodied in the visible form of Christ as the Angel of God. In New Testament times the same God is embodied in the physical form of Christ as the Son of God. Christ has always been God's Temple or body, whether as the Angel of God, or as Son of God. The same Oneness truth prevails throughout recorded (and unrecorded) history, namely that the one divine invisible Spirit has always had his physical Person in whom He dwelt and manifested Himself. This Christ, whether as Angel of God or Son of God has always been the Mediator between the invisible God and his visible creation. An examination of some of the frequent appearances of the Angel of Jehovah will prove very enlightening on this theme. It must always be borne in mind that we are not talking about "two distinct persons in the Godhead." For God the Father is not a Person; he is a divine Omnipresent

Spirit (John 4:24). Christ, whether as Angel of God or Son of God, has always been God's Only Person, God's visible Image. God the invisible Spirit has always embodied his essential deity and nature in the visible body of His "Person," the Christ. THE ANGEL OF THE LORD WRESTLED WITH JACOB UNTIL DAWN. JACOB DECLARED, "I HAVE SEEN GOD FACE TO FACE."

THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH APPEARS TO JACOB In Gen. 28:13 Jacob had a vision of God at Bethel. God declared to him at this time that He was "The God of Abraham and the God of Isaac." Twenty-One years later the Angel of God appeared to Jacob and told

him that He was the God that appeared to Him at Bethel (Gen. 31:11-13). Thus the Angel of God is the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac! Shortly after this a "man" wrestled with Jacob (Gen. 32:24). This mysterious "man" is called the "face of God." What Jacob saw was the Logos, the "image of the invisible God." This was the pre-incarnate Christ, then known as the Angel of the Lord. The Prophet Hosea speaking about Jacob's unusual "wrestling match" said, "Yea, he had power over the Angel, and prevailed: he wept and

made supplication unto him: he found him in Bethel

even Jehovah God of hosts:

... Jehovah is his memorial" (Hosea 12:4-5 margin). Here we see that the mysterious "man" who wrestled with Jacob, as a man, is none other than the Angel of the Lord, and in His

divine nature, Jehovah God Himself! Jacob wrestled with God in Christ! And this is the same One who is described as the "Word" who was in the Beginning, and was God! There can be no other conclusion. Jacob's mysterious "man" is identified by Hosea as the Angel of God. And this Angel of God is defined by the same prophet as Jehovah God.

THE ANGEL OF JEHOVAH AND MOSES The Angel of the Lord figures prominently in the life of Moses and in the Wilderness History of Israel. In Exodus 3:2 the Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. When Moses drew nigh the bush the Angel said, "I am the God of thy Father, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Exodus 3:6). It is clear that the Angel was Christ, the visible image of the invisible God, because the same verse says: "And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God."

THE ANGEL WHO LEADS TO THE PROMISED LAND God promised to lead the children of Israel by means of His Angel manifestation. "Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared." Christ as the Angel of God led the earthly Israel to an earthly Promised Land. But in this dispensation, Christ as the Son of God, leads the "spiritual Israel," His church, to their heavenly home: "In my Father's house are many mansions. If it were not so I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you" (John 14:2).

THE ANGEL WITH GOD'S NAME Christ has always been the divine name bearer. This is because wherever the fullness of the divine nature is embodied, there God's throne is also. Christ, the human Son of God, was the Temple of the embodied Father, hence he had the Father's name, and announced the fact in John 5:43: "I am come in my Father's name and ye receive me not. “The Angel of God, Christ in the Old Testament, was also the visible Temple of the Father: "Beware of him and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him" (Ex 23:21). God’s

name was in Him, because God was in Him! Who else has ever borne the Father's name but Christ? And how else could the divine Father Spirit transfer His name to a person except by incarnation or embodiment? The parallels between the Word of God (the Angel) and the Son of God are drawing ever closer.

THE ANGEL WHO CAN FORGIVE SIN When Christ was here on earth as the Son of God he shocked the Pharisees by forgiving sin. In Luke 5:20 he said to the palsied man:

"Thy sins are forgiven thee. “The Pharisees remonstrated, reasoning that only God could forgive sins. Christ responded to them by announcing: "The Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins" (Luke 5:24) Because God the Father was incarnate in the Son, the Son could forgive sins. "Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." (John 12:50). This makes Christ, the God-man, the mediator between sinful men and a sinless God. The Angel of God in the Old Testament also "had power upon the earth" to forgive sins: "Provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions" (Ex. 23:21). To power to retain or pardon transgressions was a prerogative of the Angel of the Lord. This Angel had this power because God Himself was embodied in Him and functioned through him. Just as the "God-man" was a mediator between sinners and God in the New Testament times, so also was the "God-Angel" a similar mediator in Old Testament times. In either dispensation, Christ (whether as Word of God or Son of God) is the One mediator and the only "Person" with power to forgive sins. And the basis for this is the same in both time periods; namely, God (with His name) was in Christ!

THE ANGEL WHO MUST BE OBEYED The Angel of God is to be obeyed as God Himself: "Beware of him and obey his voice, provoke him not" (Ex. 23:21). Why is it? Because the words of the Angel are actually the words of God Himself who is embodied "

in Him: "But if thou shalt obey his voice, and do all that I speak


(Ex 23:22). The

Angel's "voice" is actually God "speaking". When the same Angel-Word was made flesh ("and the Word was made flesh"), and became the Son of God, the exact same situation prevailed. The Son said: "The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (John 14:10). God has always used His Form or Image as His "Mouthpiece," so to speak. The results of obeying the Angel of God are the same as obeying the Son of God: deliverance from enemies (v. 22-23), a blessing through bread (Lord's Supper) and water (Baptism in Jesus' name), and divine healing (v. 25), and of course a new home on "the other side of Jordan."

THE ANGEL OF THE COVENANT The most positive identification of the Son of God with the pre-incarnate Angel of the Lord is found in Malachi's prophecy. In the first verse of the third chapter we read: "Behold I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me. “This was clearly John the Baptist who was the preparing messenger for Christ, the Son of God. Mark 1:2 applies this to John the Baptist. Then the next thing that is to happen is "The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly appear in His temple, even the Angel of the Covenant, whom ye delight in" (Mal. 3:1 margin). The Angel of the Lord, who walked the earth in a "celestial body”, would now become the Son of God in a new "flesh blood" human body. The Angel of God had delivered to Israel the Old Covenant (Heb. 12:25-26, Acts 7:53, Gal. 3:19). Now the same Angel or Messenger of the Covenant appears on earth as a man to deliver the New Covenant: "This is the Covenant

that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more" (Heb. 10:16-17). In the Old Testament as the Angel of God, the Christ delivered the Old Covenant to the Old Israel. Now in the New Testament, as the Son of God, He delivers the New Covenant to the New Israel.

THE ANGEL OF THE LORD AS REDEEMER The Angel of the Lord is also designated

as the "Angel of His Presence": "In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the Angel of "

His presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them


(Is 63:9). And

this verse is given as an explanation of the preceding one which said Jehovah "was their Saviour" (Is. 63:8). What does it mean when the Jehovah-Angel is called the Angel of God's Presence? It means exactly what it implies. God's very presence, his essence or nature, is embodied in this Angel. The Angel is God manifested in a visible Form. We cannot strictly call it an "incarnation" for that refers only to human bodies. But, as John Paterson put it: "While no thoughtful person would suggest that He took flesh prior to Bethlehem, His appearances in bodily form from the dawn of human history



something akin to an incarnation" (Paterson, p. 47). God is so

... embodied in His Word or Angel that we can truthfully say: "the Word was God. “The Angel-Word was the visible Temple of the otherwise invisible presence of God; hence he is the Angel of His Presence. Deity embodied in a glorious Personal Form. When the "Word was made flesh" we have the same deity or "presence" incarnate in a human form, the Son of God: "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself" (2 Cor. 5:19). God in His Angel was the means by which He reconciled Israel. God in His Son is the means by which He reconciles the world!

THE ANGEL OF GOD AS SAVIOUR The same passage in Isaiah indicates that the Angel of God is the Saviour (Is. 63:8,9). There can be only One Saviour, and that is Jehovah. Isaiah himself told us that: "I, even I, am Jehovah; and beside me there is no Saviour." (Is 43:11). The Word of God, Jehovah in Angel Form, desired to save Israel, to be their Saviour. But the Son of God, Jehovah in human Form, desires to save all mankind: "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." (John


THE ANGEL OF THE LORD IS CHRIST Some may wonder if it is correct to refer to the Angel of the Lord as "Christ". They have assumed this is a New Testament designation only. Christ is Greek for the "Anointed One." The Hebrew form is "Messiah", and as such was certainly used in the Old Testament, used by the Jews of Christ's day, contained the Word Christ (Christos-Greek). The Angel of God, being the embodiment of both God's nature and name, was certainly the "Anointed One" or "Christ" in Old Testament times. In fact, the Bible specifically refers to the Angel of the Lord as Christ, and in more than one reference. In 1 Cor. 10:4, Paul designates the Angel of the Lord that was with Israel in the wilderness, guiding and protecting them, as "Christ." "And they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. “When that same Angel of God was "provoked" (Ex 23:21) and "pardoned not their transgressions," but sent fiery serpents into the camp, "much people of Israel died" (Numb 2:6). Yet Paul says it was Christ that had been "provoked" or "tempted," again clearly identifying the

Angel with Christ: "Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents" (1 Cor 10:9). Moses was called by an Angel of God in the burning bush to forsake all and identify with God's people and to deliver them (Ex. 3:2-12). This he did. The writer of Hebrews describes it as "esteeming the reproaches of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt." (Heb. 11:26). How could Moses "esteem the reproaches of Christ" if there were no Christ? And who could this Christ be, if it wasn't the Angel that spoke to him "face to face" (Ex. 33:11), whose "glory" he saw (Ex. 33:18- 19). For the "glory" of God is found in the "face" of Christ (2 Cor. 4:6). Peter refers to the Holy Spirit, which operated in the Old Testament Prophets as the "Spirit of Christ" (1 Peter 1:11). How could there be a "Spirit of Christ" back then, if there was no Christ Himself! Remember, Isaiah talks about the Angel of His Presence, and how Israel vexed "his holy Spirit" (Is. 63:9-10). Apparently the Angel administered the divine Spirit to Israel, for it was "His" Holy Spirit, and thus, Peter calls "the Spirit of Christ." Hence the Angel was Christ. Isaiah saw the Angel of the Lord seated on the throne in heaven as the embodiment of God (Isaiah 6:1). Yet John says that Isaiah saw Christ's glory and wrote of it (John 12:41).

THE ANGEL AS GOD'S IMAGE The Angel of the Lord appeared unto Gideon (Judges 6:12). The words the Angel spoke are identified as Jehovah speaking directly to Gideon:

"And Jehovah said unto him." (v. 16). The Angel performed a miracle and then disappeared out of sight (v. 21). In verse 22 we read: "And when Gideon perceived that he was an Angel of the Lord, Gideon said, Alas O Lord (Jehovah) God! For because I have seen an Angel of the Lord face to face" (v. 22). He feared death, for he knew to see the face of the Jehovah Angel was the same thing as seeing the face of Jehovah, "and no man shall see my face and live." But Jehovah again spoke to Gideon and assured him he wouldn't die: "Peace be unto thee, fear not, thou shalt not die." (v. 23).

MANOAH'S INCIDENT In Judges 13 the Angel of the Lord appears to Manoah's wife and assures her that she will conceive. The woman describes her visitor to her as husband as "a man of God" with the "countenance of an Angel of God." Manoah prayed that the Heavenly visitor return to give them more instructions (v.8). The Angel of God did return and gave them more information about their forthcoming son, Sampson. As the Angel was about to leave, Manoah asked what the Angel's name was (v. 18). The Angel said his Name was "Wonderful" (v. 18 margin). This clearly identifies the Angel as Christ, the image of the invisible God, for he is called "Wonderful" in Is. 9:6. Are there two "Wonderfuls?" Not likely. When the Angel of the Lord left, it finally "dawned on" Manoah they had actually been communing with God in His Angelic Form as the Word, and Manoah exclaimed: "We shall surely die, because we have seen God."

JACOB'S INCIDENT We already reviewed the incident when Jacob wrestled with the Angel of God (Gen. 32:24-30). He, too, asked the Angel for His name. His request was denied. The Angel said His Name was "Wonderful," meaning "secret". It would not be revealed until Christ was born at Bethlehem, when we hear: "Call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins" (Matt 1:21). Jacob also recognized he had seen the Word Image, God's visible Angelic Form, for he said "I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (v. 30). IN THE OLD TESTAMENT THE "LOGOS", OR ANGEL


JOSHUA'S INCIDENT The same "Word" (Logos) appeared as the Angel of the Lord to Joshua and identified Himself as the "Captain of the Lord's Host" (Joshua 5:14). He then commanded Joshua to worship Him, which he did! (Joshua 5:15). There can only be One "Captain" and his name is identified in Hebrews 2:10 as Christ! As the Angel of God, Christ was Israel's Captain for earthly warfare. But now as Son of God, Christ is the Captain of our salvation in spiritual warfare! In both dispensations it was necessary for the "captain" to come to earth and "appear" before his "troops," and lead them in battle!

THE ANGEL WHO SPOKE AS GOD AND MAN Zechariah relates a mystifying incident involving Joshua the High Priest (not the same Joshua who succeeded Moses). He saw Joshua the High Priest standing before the "Angel of the Lord" and Satan standing on the right hand, resisting him (Zech. 3:1). The Angel, speaking as a "man" would, rebukes Satan saying: "Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan, even Jehovah that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee" (v. 2). But just a few verses later, the same Angel speaks in the first person as Jehovah God Himself saying: "If thou wilt keep my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house" (v. 7). The Angel of the

Lord appears to be speaking from two perspectives. One, as the messenger or Angel, and the other as the deity embodied in that Angel. In the New Testament Christ also spoke from two perspectives. As the Son he said: "I can of my own self do nothing." But as the embodied Father he said: "Thy sins be forgiven thee." In the first chapter of Zechariah we encounter the same phenomenon. The Angel, speaking as a "man" would, asked God; "O Lord of Hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem" (Zech 1:12). Yet in the second chapter the same Angel replied in the First Person, as Jehovah God Himself, saying: "For I, saith the Lord, will be unto her a wall of fire round about" (Zech. 2:5). This we see that God's Word in the Old Testament on occasions can speak from his nature or perspective as the Angel of God, the Messenger, or He may speak out of the divine nature resident in Him as Father. The same pattern we notice in the New testament concerning our Lord, who sometimes spoke as a man, as when he inquired about Lazarus' burial site: "Where have they laid him," and sometimes spoke as God, as when he commanded Lazarus to rise: "Lazarus, come forth!" The same "dual speech" from the one Person is glimpsed in the incident of Abraham offering up Isaac. When Abraham had demonstrated his faith, the Angel of God addressed him thusly: "I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou has not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me" (Gen. 22:12). First he speaks of God as apparently distinct -- "I know thou fearest God." And then the same

Angel speaks directly as God Himself: "Thou hast not withheld thy son


from me. The

same "key" of the "Dual natures of Christ," which explains such speech in the New Testament, can also be used to "unlock" the mystery of such speech in the Old Testament.

For in both cases we are dealing with the same God in the same Christ.

FROM WORD OF GOD TO SON OF GOD In the history of redemption the time came when he who had been God's "Heavenly body", known as the Word or Angel of God, would become the human Son of God. The Lord, "Whom ye seek," would suddenly come

to his human "temple" (Mal. 3:1; John 2:19). God's glorious Personal Form, His Old Testament Image, had to be "laid aside." The price of redemption required the shedding of blood. The Angel of Jehovah, the Word, was a celestial body. (Ex. 24:10). It was not composed of "flesh and blood". It was visible and tangible, but lacked the key elements for salvation, namely blood that could be shed, and flesh that could be pierced (Heb. 9:22). It had served its purpose. So the Scriptures tell us that the "Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). This mystery occurred through the process of the Virgin Birth. The glorious body of the Old Testament Word was transformed into a flesh body known as the Son of God. There was no Son of God until the flesh body emerged from the womb of the Virgin Mary: "Therefore that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). "God sent forth His Son made of a woman" (Gal. 4:4). The Bible says that this "Word made flesh," known as the Son of God, "dwelt among us" (John 1:14). The Greek word for dwelt is "tabernacled" or "pitched his tent". Now if the Son of God is a tabernacle or tent, then someone must live in it, for that's what tabernacles are for! And Christ very unmistakably revealed who was living in the tabernacle of his fleshly body: "The Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works" (John 14:10). Paul agreed to this when he said: "In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9). So just as the Word had been God's Temple or body in the Old Testament, so the "Word was made flesh", the Son of God, continues to be the temple of God in New Testament times. Paul talks of this "transformation of bodies" in Philippians the second chapter. He speaks of Christ who had been in the "form of God" and was the visible equivalent of the invisible God in earlier times (Philip. 2:6). This "form" was the Angel of God, and the "Body of Heaven." However Paul tells us that this "body" or "form" was exchanged for the "form of a servant" and the "likeness of a man" (v. 7). This is when the "Word was made flesh" and the whole idea of Christ laying aside the glorious "form of God" and taking upon himself the "fashion of a man" was for the purpose of dying on the cross for our sins (v.8).

TRUE MEANING OF MORPHE It should be mentioned at this point, that much "misinformation" is being circulated by Trinitarians concerning the interpretation of the word "form". The Greek word for "form" in this text is "morphe". While this word may embrace more than just the outward or visible form, its primary meaning is related to visible physical appearance, or outward form. In fact, in the writings of the earliest Latin fathers and in the Latin Vulgate, the word is translated by a Latin phrase that is strictly understood in a physical outward sense. The only other place that "morphe" is used in the Bible is Mark 16:12, and there it clearly refers to Christ's physical visible body. To try and translate "form" as something other than "that which strikes the eye" or "physical body" or "appearance," is simply to mistranslate it. So the "form of God" was a visible tangible body, which could be seen. Christ called it God's "shape" (John 5:37), and said it could be "seen." He ought to know!

WHY THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH God inhabiting the body of the Angelic-Word could never have offered that up on the cross for redemption. So God, through the Incarnation and Virgin Birth, transformed his immortal celestial body into a mortal human body. The "form of God" became the "form of man." And as God has been "incarnate" in the Pre-Bethlehem Angel-Image, so was he also incarnate in his post-

Bethlehem human image. God took this body to the cross (Heb. 9:14), offered it for salvation, withdrew from it so it could die (Mark 15:34), and after three days re-entered and resurrected it (John 2:19-20). Now that body, having been resurrected and glorified, is similar to what the One God had in the Old Testament. "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body" (1 Cor 15:44).It is "flesh and bone" (Luke 24:37) but not "flesh and blood" (1 Cor 15:50). In his new glorious resurrected body, Christ is not only known as the Son of God (Rom. 1:4), but has resumed his title as Angel of God also. "There stood by me this night the Angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve, saying, Fear




(Acts 27:23-24)



Paul's witness. The resurrected Son of God also appears under

the title of Angel on occasion in the Book of Revelation. In the tenth chapter of Revelation we read of a mighty Angel "Clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire" (Rev. 10:1). If we compare this with the description of Christ in Revelation 1:13-16 and Revelation 4:2-3, we see it is the same person. Christ Himself made reference to his previous glorious "form" which he possessed in ancient times when he spoke of "the glory" which He had with the Father "before the world was." This was His glory as the Word of God, the "Body of Heaven" which was mediator to all God's universe. His form as Angel of God was "glorious", especially in comparison to the human form in which he now existed, and by which "he humbled Himself, being obedient unto death" (Philip. 2:8). Nevertheless, in his resurrection and glorification Christ regains that glory which he had. "Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in Him" (John 13:31).He is again in the Body of Heaven, but with the "reminders of redemption," by which is meant the nail prints in his hands and the wound in his side.

WHY IS THE PRE-EXISTENT CHRIST CALLED "SON”? There are some passages, very few, that refer to the Old Testament Word of God as "Son." One such example is in Hebrews 1:2, which talks of the worlds being created "by the Son." How can this be, if the Son did not exist until the "Word was made flesh" at Bethlehem? The answer is very simple. In these instances the Bible writers are simply talking about the one who would later (at Bethlehem) be known as Son. They do not mean he was Son at that time. They are projecting His birth-acquired title back through time. This is a common practice, even in today's speech. I once saw a film where the narrator said: "This is the cabin where President Lincoln was born." Was he "President" at the time of his birth in that humble cabin? Of course not. But he who would become President, had been born there. In the same way we hear of the High School that President Nixon attended and the football field President Reagan played on. Were they President at the time? Certainly not. They did not become President till long after their High School and football days. The speaker is merely using a title they acquired later in life to more fully describe them. He is projecting a title back in time. So when we hear of the world being created "by the Son" we understand it is the Word that is being referred to and not a pre-existent human being. In other words, he that would later be known as the Son, created the worlds. But he did

not do it as "Son". He was the Word at that time. His Son ship acquired title (Son) is being projected back. Even Trinitarians admit this is so: "It is not unusual for Scripture to denominate appellations which do not, in a strictly literal sense, appertain to the entire range of age-times under consideration in the respective contexts. An obvious example

occurs in the words of the Son of God to his grumbling disciples


'What then if you

should behold the Son of man ascending where he was before' (John 6:61-61 NASB). It is pre-incarnate conditions, although such in prospect according to divine counsels" (Ronald F. Hogan, The Gory of God, p. 72).

IS THIS DOCTRINE ONENESS? Some may be wondering if this concept of "God in Christ" in both Testaments is in conformity with Biblical Oneness. Nothing could be more Oneness, and as I will shortly prove, this message was an original and authentic part of early Oneness Exegesis. If God the Father, as a divine Spirit, can be manifested in the body of Christ in the New Testament, and it be Oneness, then why can't the same God be similarly manifested in the body of Christ in the Old Testament? If God in Christ is Oneness in the New Testament, why is it not in the Old Testament? The only difference involves the bodies in which he dwelt. In the Old Testament it was a celestial body, known as the Word of God. In the New Testament it is a human body, known as the Son of God. It is the same God, the same Christ, and the same indwelling. Only the form of Christ's body has changed, from the "form of God" to the "form of man." God in Christ in the Old Testament is shown to be Redeemer, Saviour, Captain, and Provider. The Angel of God embodies God's Presence or divine nature, and bears God's name, and administers God's Spirit. He who sees the Angel of God sees God. God in Christ in the New Testament is also revealed as Redeemer, Saviour, Captain and Provider. The Son of God likewise embodies God's presence or divine nature, and He too bears the Father's name and administers God's Spirit. He who sees the Son of God, sees God also. Neither in the Old or New Testament are we speaking of "two distinct persons." The only Person is Christ, God's Image. He has always been the Person of God. God Himself is not a Person, divine or otherwise. He is never called a "person" in Scripture. God is a Spirit (John 4:24). So what we have is one invisible Spirit dwelling and manifesting Himself in One visible Image, known as the Angel of God in one dispensation and the Son of God in another. Pray tell, where are there two persons anywhere? THE "VOICE OF THE LORD," WHO WALKED WITH ADAM AND EVE IN THE GARDEN, WAS ACTUALLY THE ANGEL OF GOD, IN WHOM GOD WAS MANIFEST; HE WAS GOD'S OLD TESTAMENT "FORM" OR "BODY".

LET THE FOUNDERS SPEAK Many of the early pioneers of Oneness truth recognized and taught the concept of God in Christ in the Old Testament. It was part and parcel of the message. It did not receive as much attention as the New Testament "God in Christ" truth due to the fact that the battle lines with Trinitarians were primarily drawn on New Testament territory. Nevertheless they recognized the important truths concerning the Jehovah Angel as the Word of God. The neglect of this aspect of Oneness has resulted in much needless controversy with Trinitarians, where time might have been more profitably spent. Oneness exponents of today need to realize, as their forbearers did, that the "idealistic Son doctrine" will never adequately answer all the texts presented to us on the pre-existent Christ by our opponents. The entire oneness message will never come into complete harmony without this segment of the Truth being fully integrated into our theology.

Let us now examine the record of our early writers.

G.T. HAYWOOD Bishop Haywood, first Bishop of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, was a theologian, journalist, composer and artist. A genius by the definition of the term. His theological works on Oneness were among the first to appear. Concerning the Angel of Jehovah as the Word, he wrote: "Elohim is God, the living God, the power of

creation (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:15-17; Rev. 3:4-11). He first assumes a creature form, though spiritual in nature (Gen. 12:7, 32:24-30, Is. 6:1, 5); afterwards, the human form for the purpose of redeeming mankind. (John 1:14, Heb. 2:9, 14, 16, 17; Phil. 2:7, Rom. 8:3). That Elohim, in his creature form spiritually, who appeared to the Patriarchs and Prophets is the same who appeared in a human form 1,900 years ago to Israel can be clearly seen by reading the following Scriptures: Gen. 17:13, Ex. 6:23, with John 8:56-58, Is. 6:1, 2, 5, 9, 10 with John 12: 9-40, 41, 44, 45." (G.T. Haywood, Divine Names and Titles of Jehovah, p. 7-8). "When Jacob wrestled with the Angel he sought to obtain the secret

name, but was prohibited

The children of Israel were led by the Angel of the Lord and



my name is in him' (Ex. 23:21). To Manoah, the

... Jehovah said, 'Beware of him

Jehovah Angel replied, 'Why asketh thou after my name, seeing it is secret (margin, Wonderful)?' (Judges 13:18). The Prophet Isaiah declared that his name shall be called 'Wonderful' (Is. 9:6). From these scriptures it can be clearly seen the Jehovah had a name to be revealed which was above all his names! There is not a shadow of a doubt but that the angel that appeared to the Virgin of Nazareth was the Jehovah Angel of old who bore that "Wonderful' name. It was there that he had finished his journey over the hills of time and deposited that secret name in the bosom of her who was 'highly favoured of God.’ .. The Word was God from the beginning (John 1:1-4) and when the Word became flesh, it was given a name that 'is above every name,' for he there and then 'magnified his Word' above all His name. His name shall be called Jesus!" (Haywood, p. 13-14).

JOHN PATERSON In 1920 John Paterson wrote his classic Oneness Treatise entitled "Revelation of Jesus Christ." This was used as a textbook in early Oneness circles and was printed by both G.T. Haywood and A.D. Urshan. It has been reprinted by Word Aflame Press under the Title "God in Christ Jesus. Bro. Paterson, whom I knew, presented me with a personally autographed copy of his book when he first reprinted it. I quote now from this Oneness pioneer's masterful work which contains over 800 scripture references: "The visible being who appeared to Jacob and declared himself to be God, and who was recognized by Jacob as God, is variously described in the Bible as 'the Angel of Jehovah' (over 50 references), 'the Angel of the Covenant' (Mal. 3:1, 1 Cor 10:9), and 'the Angel who can refuse to pardon iniquity, because the name of Jehovah is in Him' (Ex. 23:21, Psalm 2:12). Surely no one will deny the Power to forgive, or the

right to refuse pardon, belongs solely to God. Who is this Angel if he is not the pre-

existent Christ? ...


the fact that Christ was not 'just another angel' did not

prevent Him from being the Angel of God's Presence and the Angel of the covenant who 'suddenly came to His Temple' (as foretold in Malachi 3:1 and fulfilled in John 2:13-16)" (John Paterson, God in Christ Jesus, p. 48-49).John Paterson's book "The Real Truth About Baptism in Jesus' Name" has been in circulation over 50 years. It is considered the most popular and widely decimated Oneness book of all time. On page 13 we read: "God gives a fearful warning against trifling with His name in the Person of His Son when he says concerning the Angel of the Covenant, 'Beware of Him. And obey His voice, provoke Him not' Why? 'for my name is in Him' (Ex. 23:21). Every Bible student knows

that He was the Lord Jesus Christ" (John Paterson, The Real Truth About Baptism in Jesus Name, p. 13-14).

FRANK J. EWART Bro. Ewart was the first to see the light on Water Baptism in Jesus' Name as the fulfillment of Matthew 28:19. Back in 1913 he began baptizing in Jesus' name those first Oneness believers. He was also an articulate author. Concerning the Pre- existent Christ, he writes: "There is not a single scripture that asserts Jesus existed eternally as a Son. He is called 'the Word,' 'God's Wisdom,' 'Back in the Beginning,' but

never God's Son. See John 1:1, Prov. 8:22-31

He asserts that His existence was

... inseparable from the One True God. He asserted that back in the beginning he was in 'the bosom of the Father.' It is written in Zechariah that he was 'God's Fellow.' Micah said the "

babe of Bethlehem was 'from everlasting.' Isaiah says He was 'the Everlasting Father'

... (Frank Ewart, Revelation of Jesus Christ, p. 37).Bro. Ewart recognized the "Word" or "God's Fellow" to be the embodiment of the invisible Father back in "the beginning" and who would later become the "Babe of Bethlehem."

C.H. YADONC.H. Yadon, a well-revered Oneness Pioneer, had reprinted a remarkable book entitled "Jehovah-Jesus." This book was originally written by one R.D. Weeks. For years this book was the principal Godhead work circulated by the United Pentecostal Church. Often quoted out of context, and distorted grossly by enemies of Oneness, the book fell into disfavour, and has not been reprinted in years. However it contained a very thorough exposition of the Angel of Jehovah as the Pre-Existent Christ and the embodiment of the Father. He wrote: "It was the same divine 'Angel,' the 'God of Israel,' that was seen by Moses and the elders of Israel on Mount Sinai, and who spoke to them there. We are told that 'no man hath seen God at any time,' that is, God as a Spirit. What they saw must have been the Angel Jehovah, the same who 'spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto a friend' -- The Lord, (Jehovah) who spoke to Moses not in a vision, nor in a dream, but mouth to mouth, even apparently, whose 'similitude' he beheld. He was a created being, because 'seen' and talked with 'mouth to mouth' and; face-to-face' yet also Jehovah, God Himself. He was the Spiritual Rock, the 'angel' that was with the Israelites in the wilderness, which 'Rock was Christ'" (C.H. Yadon, Jehovah-Jesus, p. 51).

THEODORE FITCH In the early 1930's the Lord Jesus Christ Himself appeared to Theodore Fitch, who was a Trinitarian, and revealed the Oneness of the Godhead to him. Rev. Fitch immediately set about writing his book "The Deity of Jesus." It is still the most comprehensive work ever published on the Oneness. Fitch wrote many other books on the Oneness, which enjoyed wide circulation among believers. I quote from "The Deity of Jesus" page 4: "The 'Angel of the Lord' represented the Great Eternal Spirit that filled

the Universe. The Spirit of God was present everywhere. The Angel 'Person' of God was God in One Place. Please notice that every time the Angel of the Lord appeared or spoke

to anyone it was God Himself 'in person'

Before the Son of God was born of the Virgin

... Mary, the Lord God existed in two definite ways. God was manifested as an Angelic Spirit 'Person' and as an omnipresent Spirit, that is present everywhere all the time. His 'Person' was in the form of a man, and His eternal Spirit was without form, body or parts" (Theodore Fitch, The Deity of Jesus, Pentecostal Publishing House, Hazelwood, MO n.d., p. 4). "Before the incarnation, the fullness of God dwell in a Spirit body which was in the

form of a man. This beautiful angel body was made flesh by the power of the Holy Ghost

in the womb of the Virgin Mary. This made the God-Angel a God-man

If the Word or

.. 'Person' of God was made flesh, then the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father


.. Word that was God, was 'made over' into a flesh man (John 1:14). When God the Word

was made flesh, he became a Son, but still remained God, he still remained the same



The angel Person of the Lord from Heaven is now called the Son of God"

(Fitch, p. 22,23).

OSCAR VOUGA Bro. Vouga's popular little book "Our Gospel Message" has this to say concerning the Son of God and his Pre-existence as the Word of God on p. 28: "The Son of God was conceived of the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary. (Matt. 1:18-25) -

The son of David of the tribe of Judah. 'In the beginning (He) was the Word, and the

Word was with God, and the Word was God



things were made by Him; and without

him was not anything made that was made.' John 1:1-3. Her was in the form of God (Phil.

2:6). He was the Body of Heaven that Moses and Aaron, with the elders of Israel, saw. (Ex. 24:10). It was He who talked with Abraham (Gen. 17:1), wrestled with Jacob (Gen.

32:24-30), was and is the creator of all things. '


things were created by Him and for

... Him' Col. 1:16 "'But made himself of no reputation (Nay, he stripped Himself of glory -

Weymouth), and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men,' Phil. 2:7. He left the glory of the Father, that is stripped Himself of divine glory, but

not of deity, and was made flesh

He is now glorified with the Father with the glory He

... had before the world was (John 17:5). (Oscar Vouga, Our Gospel Message, p. 28).The book carries an endorsement from Howard A. Goss, founding father of both the Assemblies of God and the United Pentecostal Church. Bro. Vouga's exposition of the Godhead on pages 27 to 29 of his book is in my opinion one of the very best ever written.

GORDON MAGEE “Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in Jesus" is the famous little book by the well-known Apostle to Ireland, Gordon Magee. On page 7 of the original edition published by the author (It has been changed in the revised edition published by Word Aflame Press), we read, "'Who being in the form of God, though it not robbery to be equal with God.' Or in other words, before Jesus was born with his human nature He was the divine visible equation of the invisible God. He was originally in the form of God and thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but he made himself of no reputation, 'He took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of

men.' this being, who prior to His physical birth, was in the very form of God -- the full equation in a majestic form of the invisible God -- This Being, God, at His Incarnation took upon himself the likeness of men. He assumed human nature at his incarnation, but

did not cease to be God Jesus, n.d., p. 7).



(Gordon Magee, Is Jesus in the Godhead or is the Godhead in

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE WORD We have seen that the Son of God, the man Christ Jesus, pre-existed as the Word (Logos) or Angel of the Lord. We have also seen that this Word or Angel was God's visible Image and Mediator in the Old Testament. He was God's personal Form. The invisible divine Spirit was "incarnate" in this Angel of God, just as he would later be in the Son of God. This explains how the Word was "with

God" and yet "was God" and how God created all things "by Christ Jesus." The question now before us concerns the origin of this Word or Angel. Was he "created" or "eternal" or "begotten?"

TRINITARIAN THEORY The origin of the Logos is shrouded in mystery. We know the Word was "in the beginning" (John 1:1) and existed before "the foundation of the world" (John 17:24). This much we know. Trinitarians feel th Logos was "eternal." They base their reasoning on such texts as Micah 5:2 which speaks of his "goings forth" which "have been of eternity." Also Proverbs 8:23 "I was set up from everlasting."

ONENESS THEORY Others, including Oneness theologians, feel the Logos had a definite origin. They point to Christ's statement in Rev. 3:14, where he referred to Himself as "The Beginning of the Creation of God." They view this as a reference to his Pre-existence as the Logos. The passage in Colossians 1:15-19 is also used to prove the argument. Christ is called the "image of the invisible God" in verse 15. This, as we have seen, is the Word or Angel of the Lord. The same verse also calls Him "the Firstborn of every creature." This, like the title in Rev. 3:14, is the instrument of creation "for by him were all things created" (v. 16). And this was possible only because the Father was dwelling in Him as His divine nature: "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell." (v. 19). This "fullness" is the Godhead, "for in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9). Heb 1:6 is also taken as a reference to his primeval origin. This "first begotten" however receives worship, "let all the Angels of God worship him." Thus, the divine nature of God is resident or incarnate in the First Begotten, making him also God and worthy of worship.

FIRST BORN AND FIRST BEGOTTEN Christ as the Word or Jehovah Angel is said to be the "first born" and "first begotten." Based on what we know these expressions could never be taken literally, for that would require a "divine mother" pre-existing in heaven; "begotten" and "born" are earthly terms, defined by human reproduction. Christ's birth at Bethlehem was a literal begetting because he had a "real" mother and was actually "born." God was the real Father of that child, howbeit through a miraculous birth. So Col. 1:15 and Heb. 1:6 must be taken as highly figurative language which refers to a process about which we have no real understanding or capacity to understand.

EARLY FATHERS It is apparent from reading the creeds and the writings of the early church Fathers that they believed in the origin of the Logos in Pre-Creation times. The idea of an "eternal generation" always going on, and a "birth always taking place" but never culminating were later "twists" woven around the original and unambiguous statements. We shall examine some.

THE APOSTLES CREED Considered the oldest, though not written by the Apostles. It contains no reference to the Pre-existent Logos, or His being "begotten." It also makes no reference to the deity of Christ. Aryans, Trinitarians, and Sabellianists, could all easily subscribe to this creed. It is "controversy free." No wonder its popularity has endured!

THE NICENE CREED This creed refers to the Son's pre-existence and origin as Logos in these words: "Begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God and very God, begotten, not made." In this creed we also read of the Son being of one substance with the Father. However, he is still "begotten before all worlds."

ATHANASIAN CREED This, the lengthiest of all creeds, speaks of Christ as "begotten before the worlds," but "of the substance of the Father." He is still "begotten before all worlds," but the idea is that he was generated from the Father's "substance."

CHALCEDONIAN CREED “Begotten of the Father before the Ages" is the phrase used in this creed. He had an origin before the ages begin to roll. The Virgin Birth is also defined as a second "begetting" in these words: "But yet as regards his manhood, begotten for us men and for our salvation, of the Virgin May, the God-bearer (Or Mother of God-"theotokos" in Greek)."

JUSTIN MARTYR “Now the Word of God is His Son, as I said before. he is also called

'Angel' and 'Apostle'. For as Angel he announces what it is necessary to know

This can

... be made clear from the writings of Moses, in which this is to be found: 'and the angel of

God spoke to Moses in a flame of fire out of the bush and said, I am He who is God of '

Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob


But these words were altered to demonstrate

that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Apostle, who was first the Word, and appeared now in the form of fire, now in the image of the bodiless creatures (angels). Now,

however, having become man by the will of God for the sake of the human race


... Father of the universe has a Son, who being the Word and first begotten of God is also divine. Formerly he appeared in the form of fire and the image of a bodiless being to Moses and the other prophets. But now in the time of your dominion he was, as I have said, made man of a virgin according to the will of the Father." (Early Christian Fathers, Cyril C. Richardson, editor, p. 284-285).

ATHENAGORA "Rather did the Son come forth from the Father to give form and

actuality to all material things

The Prophetic Spirit agrees with this opinion when he

... says: "The Lord created me as the first of his ways, for his works'" (Richardson, p.

309)This is sufficient to show that the idea of the Word being "formed," "begotten," "created," or "coming forth," from God in a time described as "before all worlds," "before the ages," "in the beginning," was not an unfamiliar or novel concept in the early church. This Word was also identified with the Angel of God in the Old Testament times.

A MODERN DAY WITNESS TO THE LOGOS DOCTRINEA very interesting discussion concerning the Word appears in Dr. E.W. Bullinger's previously cited "Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek Testament." The doctrine Dr. Bullinger brings forth, although he is an ardent Trinitarian, is almost word-for-word the Oneness position on Christ as the Word, or Angel of God. Here is what he says: "The Godhead is 'Spirit' (john 4:24) and as Spirit has no likeness to matter, God Himself took some creature form, (not human) before He created anything, in order that creation might have a mediator, or a means of communion with Deity. Hence, Christ is said to have been, 'In the Beginning' (John 1:1); 'before all things' (Co. 1:17); 'The Firstborn of every

Creature' (Col. 1:15); 'The Beginning of the Creation of God' (Rev. 3:14); and hence, "In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily' (Col. 2:9). "Elohim, therefore, is the Logos or Word, who took creature hood, to create, (as afterwards took humanity, to redeem). As such He is the Father's 'Servant,' 'Angel,' or 'Messenger.' (Elohim denotes His being set apart to the office with an oath; Messiah or Christ, His anointing to the work of redemption; Angel or Messenger, referring to his actual dispatch; Servant, with reference to the service actually to be done). He appeared to Adam and the Patriarchs, (Gen. 17, 17, 18, 21, 22, 32; Ex. 3, 6; Joshua 5:13-15 with Ex. 23:23; Judges 13, etc., etc.) This view only makes permanent that which most commentators assume as being only temporary. "His mission in connection with creation was to manifest Deity to His creatures, (Prov. 8:22-31). His work was begun with Adam (made in His likeness and image), but the Fall interrupted the mission, and it was necessarily suspended. Then 'the Word was made flesh' (John 1:14) in order that He might redeem creation from the curse. Made flesh in order that He might suffer and die (See Heb. 10:5, Ps 40:6; Is. 42:40, Philip. 2:7)." (Bullinger, p. 896-897). Oneness theologians could find no argument with this marvelous discussion from the pen of a well-known and well-respected Trinitarian Bible expositor and author.

CHRIST'S OWN WORDS Christ Himself may have been speaking of his beginning as Word of Jehovah Angel in a number of statements He made. These statements have a cryptic and mystifying ring to them and may be capable of deeper interpretation than

what we have accorded them. "Jesus said unto them, If God were you Father, ye would "

love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God


(John 8:42).When did Jesus

"proceed forth" from God? Could it have been when He emerged from the Father as the Word, or God's Image, in the dateless past? We know when He "proceeded forth" from Mary as the Son of God, for the Scriptures say: "God sent forth His Son made of a woman" (Gal. 4:4).But where does the Bible say "He proceeded forth" as the Word of God? Perhaps John 8:42 provides the Bible answer. In one of his last discussions with the disciples Christ says: "For the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God" (John 16:27).What is this "coming out from God" that Jesus is speaking of? Obviously it is the same as his "proceeding forth" and is a reference to the time when He, as the Word, first made his appearance "before all ages," even "before the worlds were." For He was God's visible form or Temple before anything was created. The first thing God fashioned was a body for Himself; this was the "beginning of the Creation of God" and the "first born of all creation." In this body God could dwell and "incarnate" Himself and thus have a Mediator for all his subsequent creation. In his final prayer Christ says: "For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out "

from thee

(John 17:8)."Came out" as the "First begotten," the "Image of the invisible

... God," is what he meant! He "came out" from Mary as the "form of man" in 4 B.C. But

He came "out from God" as the "form of God" back "before all worlds." Mary produced the Human body in which the divine Spirit dwelt, but in the dateless past God produced the celestial body (Ex. 24:10) in which he dwelt, before He was "made flesh" (John 1:14).

IS THE WORD IN ANY SENSE ETERNAL? The Word of God, as God's creature form

(Bullinger, p. 896) came forth from the omnipotent Spirit in the dateless past before the:

“Foundation of the world." The emergence of the Angel of Jehovah as God's "celestial body" and "mediator" at this remote time is scripturally assured for us (Micah 5:2, Prov. 8:23; John 17:24). But is there any sense in which it could be said that the Word was eternal? Yes, in the sense of having existed in God's mind or foreknowledge as an unexpressed thought, destined to take substantial form in time. The Word did not exist eternally as a "distinct" divine Second Person in the Godhead. There was no "persons" at all, just Spirit, until the Jehovah Angel was brought forth as God's Person. And it was in this one and only Person of the Word that God took up residence and deposited his divine nature. The Catholic Encyclopedia, of all books, has this to say on the subject: "They knew that St. John spoke of the Second Person of the Trinity as the 'Word of God' existing from all eternity as an unexpressed word. in the mind of a Thinker. Only when God decided to create, and especially when he sent his word upon the earth in the form of the man Christ, did the inner word come forth; it was now the spoken Word through whom all things were made and who was made flesh and dwelt among us" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XI,. p70).Except for the preposterous notion that an "unexpressed word in the mind of a thinker" can be considered a "second Person" in the Trinity, the main thrust here is correct. The Word existed eternally as an unexpressed concept in God's mind. Then the Word took actual existence when God "brought forth" His Visible Form, the Jehovah-Angel, called also the "Word," or the "Body of Heaven." The Deity dwelt in this Form as His visible Temple; this is the Word that was "in the Beginning" and was eventually "made flesh." This is the scriptural doctrine concerning the Pre-Existence of Christ. HE WHO WALKED AMONG US IN THE "DAYS OF HIS FLESH" AS THE SON OF GOD, HAD PREVIOUSLY MANIFESTED HIMSELF TO THE PATRIARCHS AS THE WORD OF GOD.

Pages 141 through 151































THE HEART OF ONENESS Carl Brumback in his book "God in Three Persons" remarked that the very heart of the Oneness Movement is in its doctrine of Baptism in Jesus' Name. In a sense this is true. Baptism in Jesus' name was the first truth recovered after the Latter Rain outpouring of 1900, and in the words of E.N. Bell "it was the vehicle God used to roll up to our astonished eyes a greater vision of Jesus than we had ever seen before." Baptism in Jesus' Name was the first step in a doctrinal chain reaction that led to the revelation of the Truth of Oneness and the Biblical New Birth. Therefore, it is only logical that this doctrine would receive the fiercest assaults from our enemies, and in the case of Dr. Boyd and other Neo-Trinitarians, the most bizarre and desperate mechanizations ever brought forth against a Truth; arguments so desperate that many Trinitarians refuse to endorse them. It is in his theories concerning Baptism in Jesus' Name that Dr. Boyd has ventured the farthest; pressing the very limits of blasphemy, he drives his leaky vessel ever onward through the ocean of confusion and apostasy.

WATER TESTS God has always tested and proved his people through the means of water. When the Bible opens there is water (Genesis 1:2). No mention is made of its creation, though it surely was created. The Spirit is also there, brooding over the waters. Right from the start of the Biblical record there is a combination of water and Spirit that results in creation. Thousands of years later the Master tells Nicodemus that another combination of water and Spirit would result in a "new creation." "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. " (John 3:5).God proved Noah with an earth-wide water test, "Wherein

few, that is eight souls were saved by water" (1 Peter 3:20).God tested the children of Israel at the Red Sea, in which, "they were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (1 Cor. 10:2).Another water and Spirit event. Also, in Gideon's day, God told Gideon "The people are yet too many; bring them down unto the water, and I will try them for thee there" (Judges 7:4).Out of 10,000 only 300 passed the water test. In the New Testament John the Baptist brought a water test to the people in preparation to receiving

Christ, and the Pharisees failed it by rejecting

"the counsel of God against themselves,

... being not baptized of him" (Luke 7:30).On the day of Pentecost, Peter put the water test to the assembled multitude, men responsible for the crucifixion. When they, pricked in their hearts, desired to know what to do to be saved, Peter told 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). "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls." (Acts 2:41).

HISTORY OF THE REVELATION OF BAPTISM IN JESUS' NAME In the year 1913 a worldwide camp meeting of "Spirit baptized" Pentecostal believers was held in Arroyo Seco, California. A name, which means "Dry Gully" in Spanish. How significant - "yet that valley shall be filled with water, that ye may drink" (2 Kings 3:17). God had alerted the saints beforehand through the Spirit, that he would "Do a New Thing" and proceed to do a "marvelous work among the people, even a marvelous work and a wonder" (Is.

29:14). Therefore, an air of expectancy prevailed over the Camp Meeting. It came quietly at first. A Bro. McAllister from Canada, while preaching a sermon on water baptism, remarked that if they were to follow Apostolic precept they would baptize their candidates once by immersion in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. This sent spiritual waves throughout the assembled congregation. Shortly after that, a Bro. Sheppe, an immigrant from Danzig, Germany, received a tremendous revelation concerning the Name of Jesus and dutifully woke his fellow campers up in the midnight hour to share it. A great searching of the scripture began concerning the subject of the Name of Jesus Christ. Bro. Frank Ewart was the first to see the relationship between Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38. Guided by the Spirit of God he clearly saw, by placing all the scriptures together, that the reason Peter commanded baptism in Jesus' Name at Pentecost was due to the fact that the name "Jesus" is the one name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit referred to by our Lord in Matthew 28:19. He immediately baptized Glenn Cook who in turn baptized him and a spiritual fire of truth was lit that now encircles the globe. From this small beginning an international movement for the restoration of true New Testament Apostolic religion exists earth wide in the Oneness Pentecostal Revival. A movement that Dr. Boyd claims he was once part of for a number of years: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us" 1 John 2:19.Now he feels he must work diligently to turn this thing back. This will prove a most difficult and dangerous task for him, "for whosoever shall fall on this rock shall be broke: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder" (Matt 21:44).

EFFICACY OF BAPTISM The opening volley of every attack on water baptism in Jesus' Name is always an attempt to minimize the importance of baptism in general. For our opponents know that if people are taught that baptism is not "all that important," certainly not "essential for salvation," then they will not feel so compelled to give diligent search as to the proper mode or formula. And a diligent search in scripture and history is the last thing our detractors want! For they know it is fatal to their position. Dr. Boyd is no different in this respect, for he writes: "This is not, however, the same as saying that salvation was ever seen as being directly contingent upon baptism. The continual insistence in the New Testament that it is faith, and faith alone, that saves a person is "

itself enough to prove this


(Boyd, p. 136).

WORDS OF CHRIST So salvation was never "seen as being directly contingent upon baptism." Conspicuous by its absence in Dr. Boyd's discussion are the extremely "contingent" words of Christ in Mark 16:16. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. "Seems like quite a direct contingency to me -- belief plus baptism yields salvation.

WHAT COULD BE PLAINER? Dr. Boyd's omission of this passage may be due to the fact that he does not consider this portion of Mark as part of the Word of God, a view held in common with Jehovah's Witnesses, who print it reluctantly in the margin of their New World Translation. This is an old dodge often employed -- "It's not in the original Greek." But it is, and the weight of scholarship now leans ever increasingly in its favour.

Phillip Schaff's Companion to Greek New Testament, page 190 proves the passage is included in 500 ancient manuscripts! Schaff says: "The section is found in most of the uncial and in all the cursive manuscripts and on most of the ancient versions, in all existing Greek and Syriac lectionaries as far as examined; and Irenaeus, who is a much older witness than any of our existing manuscripts quotes vs. 19 as part of the Gospel of Mark."

GOOD-BYE TO AUGUSTINE AND FRIENDS It is amazing to see how quickly Dr. Boyd has parted company with the "great saints of the church" including Augustine, Aquinas, and the Cappodocian Fathers. For they all believed strongly and fervently in "baptism for remission of sins." They were baptismal regenerationists to a man! Dr. Boyd is quite content to soak up their wisdom in regards to the Trinity (and pass it on second hand to us), but when it comes to their equally dogmatic position on water baptism for remission of sins, they are no longer wise nor great. Surely if these fathers were so "divinely illuminated" as to discover such teachings as the Perichoresis doctrine, they could not have missed something so elemental as baptism. Why doesn't he quote them now on this position? He doesn't dare, because he is again impaled on the horns of a dilemma. If he quotes them on baptismal regeneration he will have to admit that it is either a valid doctrine or that they were deceived and unenlightened! Neither of which would be pleasant for him. The only alternative is to let "sleeping dogs lie." But I insist on waking them and hearing them bark!

TERTULLIAN "So in the case of baptism

a man is brought down into the water and

... washed to the accompaniment of a few words, and comes up again little or no cleaner, therefore, it is regarded as incredible (to unbelievers - ed.) that he should obtain -- eternal life." (Gore, Reconstruction of Belief, p. 645).

JUSTIN MARTYR "No one is allowed to partake of it (the Eucharist) unless he believes that what we teach is true, and has been washed in the laver for the remission of sins and for regeneration." (Gore, p. 918).

AUGUSTINE Baptism confers "supernatural grace upon those who receive" and "expunges the stain of original sin from them" (Encyclopedia Britanica, Vol. III, p. 138). AQUINAS Baptism is a "means of grace," "admits to membership in the visible church," and "sin, both original and actual is forgiven." (Encyclopedia Britanica, Vol. III, p. 139). The list could go on indefinitely, and Dr. Boyd well knows it. The unanimous testimony of every early Church document (Apostolic Fathers, Ante-Nicene, Post-Nicene), reveals that Baptism is for the remission of sins. All the early Church fathers, and "great saints" of the church all proclaim with one united voice the same doctrine -- baptism for remission of sins. The same men, and the same voices, Dr. Boyd is so happy to refer us to on the Question of the Trinity; of them he says on page 161: "And each of these figures understood himself to be passing on the Faith that was had been handed down by the Apostles from the beginning" (Boyd, p 161).And that includes Baptismal Regeneration!

SCHOLARS AND CREEDS All scholarship is agreed on this point: "On the basis of these and similar declarations by the writers of the New Testament it may be concluded

that in the Christian Community of the 1st Century baptism occupied a place of great importance and was regarded as essential to the New Birth and to membership in the Kingdom of God" (Encyclopedia Britanica, Vol. III, p. 138). And what of the Creeds? These creeds, that are such doctrinal fortresses for Trinitarian Belief, also shelter within their walls the teaching of Baptismal Regeneration! On pages 172 and 173, Dr. Boyd takes great pains to point out the correct interpretation of what the "ancient confessions" really meant in regards to the Trinity, lest we become guilty of a "misapplication of the creedal language." But he is awfully silent on how to apply the "creedal language" of these "ancient confessions" where they announce such "orthodox teachings" as "we acknowledge one baptism unto the remission of sins" -- Nicene Creed. In the first half of the Nicene Creed (which speaks of the Trinity) is true and applicable, why such "deafening silence" on the second half, which puts forth baptism for remission of sins? Its sad but true; Dr. Boyd and other Neo-Trinitarians must bid a reluctant farewell to "church Fathers," "church traditions," "Cappodocians," "Augustine," and "Aquinas." For they all held unequivocally to baptism for remission of sins. Allies on the Trinity; enemies of baptism. How much reliance can one place on that divided camp! BAPTISM FOR (EIS) REMISSION OF SINS The first Gospel sermon preached in the newly opened church age was delivered by the Apostle Peter on the Day of Pentecost and climaxed with these immortal words: "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).This has always been to mean just what it says -- baptism is the means of obtaining remission of sins. All the early writings of the Church, Fathers and Apologists, so understood it. Church History of 1500 years knew of no other meaning. The Greek Church, in whose language the verse was written, knows of no other meaning. Dr. Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism knew of no other meaning. But Neo-Trinitarian "easy- believism" advocates now of another meaning! "The preposition 'eis' in Greek can simply mean 'with a view towards,' 'in connection with,' or 'in the light of.' If this interpretation is meant, Peter is in this passage simply saying that baptism should follow the repentance that has brought about the forgiveness of sins." (Boyd, p. 136).In other words this is the old worn out argument, "spruced up" somewhat, that the word "for" in Acts 2:38 really means "because of." Hence according to this theory we are baptized "because of" the remission of sins, which we already received when we "signed a decision card," or "slipped up a finger" or "allowed" Jesus to come into our heart. This nonsensical

interpretation has been answered repeatedly in the past. The preposition "eis" does not mean "because of" or "in the light of." It means "in order to obtain." Thayer, in his Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament, defines it: "a preposition governing the accusative case and denoting entrance into, or direction and limit, into, towards, for among." (Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 4th ed.).Arndt and Gingrich, unquestionable authorities agree with Thayer: "of place -- into, in, toward to" (William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature). For the Acts 2:38 passage they have

to say this: "to denote purpose, in order to ...


forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be

forgiven. “This certainly kills Dr. Boyd's innovative translation and lays it in it well- deserved grave. But if more proof is desired, it is available. In Matthew 26:28 Christ uses the exact same phrase, word for word, as found in Acts 2:38 - eis ophesin hamartion: "for the remission of sins." The context in this case is the Last Supper and the Lord is

speaking of his blood. "This is my blood

which is shed for many for the remission of

... sins." There it is, "for the remission of sins" -- exactly the same as in Peter's sermon. Now

did Christ mean his blood would be shed because the believers already had remission of sins, or did he mean that it would be shed for them to obtain remission of sins? Obviously to obtain remission of sins. Therefore, Peter's command in Acts 2:38, which is a perfect parallel to Matthew 26:28, means exactly the same -- baptism "in order to obtain" remission of sins. And with this conclusion agree all major Greek scholars, all "apostolic Fathers," all "the great saints of the Church," all reputable historians of Early Christianity, The Greek Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church, etc.; the same sources, by the way, that are appealed to by Dr. Boyd and other Trinitarians, in support of the Doctrine of the Trinity. In his section on "Baptismal Regeneration" (pages 134-139), Dr. Boyd doesn't mention even one time "the church," "the fathers," scholars, theologians, church history, or orthodox tradition -- sources he is so fond of appealing to in his Godhead discussions. Why? He knows he's "changed hats" for a while and can't use them; for they oppose his doctrine of baptismal efficacy, with a vengeance!

BORN OF WATER -- JOHN 3:5Next the statement of Christ himself must be attacked in order to depose Baptism from its scriptural essentiality. Those who relegate baptism to a mere "outward sign of an inward work" are always nervous around John 3:5 -- almost never quoting it when mentioning the New Birth. "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. “This is so obviously a reference to baptism of water and Spirit that our opponents become almost frantic in their efforts to escape its impact. Their fertile imaginations go into overdrive! Through the years I have heard that "water" refers to the birth fluid surrounding the fetus, or the Word of God, or the preaching of the Word, or waters of salvation, or Christ's "belly," -- anything but baptism in water! Jesus in John 3 talks about births involving Spirit, water, and flesh. All agree flesh is literal, all agree Spirit is literal, but when we come to water it suddenly becomes symbolic in some people's minds. In almost any Bible the marginal references will direct you to Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21, and Titus 3:5; all water baptismal references. Again, all the early church fathers and apologists, ante and post Nicene writers, interpreted it to mean water baptism. There is no other viewpoint in the early church. The Cappodocians, Augustine, and Aquinas would be quick to explain it as baptism and would be "astonished beyond measure" at any other interpretation, and would brand as a heretic anyone who taught otherwise! But, of course, Dr. Boyd must again bid them Adieu, for he has yet another interpretation: "Turning to John 3:5 there is simply no decisive reason to think Jesus is referring to baptism when he says that one must be 'born of water'" (Boyd, p. 138).What is the reason? Why, Nicodemus would not have understood, that's why! "Its certainly difficult to suppose that Nicodemus would have understood 'water' as referring to the not-yet-existent ritual of Christian baptism" (Boyd, p. 138).

HOW DID NICODEMUS UNDERSTAND IT? The implication is that Nicodemus had no experience with the practice of baptism, and hence would never have made the connection between "born of water" and "baptized in water." Therefore Christ certainly would not have brought up something, still future, that Nicodemus couldn't possibly

comprehend. This is absolutely untrue. John the Baptist had just finished a mass water baptismal campaign in preparation for the Messiah's arrival (Luke 3:3) in which a "multitude" of Jews "Came forth to be baptized of him" (Luke 3:7), and "went out to Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins" (Matt 3:5-6). In addition, Nicodemus would have been very familiar with the practice of baptizing in water all proselytes to the Jewish

faith: "Baptism

was already in the time of our Lord (with circumcision and sacrifice)

... the rite for the incorporation of the Gentile proselytes into the community of Israel. The whole ceremony was their 'New Birth' as Israelites" (Gore, 672).Gore also quotes the distinguished Hebrew scholar Eldrsheim who adds: "as he (the proselyte) stepped out of these waters he was considered 'born anew' -- in the language of the Rabbis as if he were a 'little child just born'" (Gore, p. 672).In the light of all this it would seem incredible if Nicodemus didn't associate our Lord's phrase with water baptism. It would be the first thing to come to his mind! And what does Dr. Boyd offer as an alternative interpretation to "born of water" as a reference to water baptism? Ever the innovator, he says: "Hence it seems most likely that 'water' is being used as a metaphorical synonym for 'Spirit' in verse 5" (Boyd, p. 138).This leads to the truly bizarre conclusion that what Jesus actually said was: "Unless a man be born of the Spirit and of the Spirit he cannot enter the Kingdom of God!" And of course, "Nicodemus would have readily picked up on this." (Boyd, p. 139). And so have we!

BAPTISM SAVES -- 1 PETER 3:21The passage in 1 Peter 3:21 is next on the "hit" list:

"The like figure whereunto [even] 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 connection between water baptism and the salvation it produces is so strongly linked here ("contingent" if you please) that "they who labour, labour in vain" to refute it. But Dr. Boyd says it means the "opposite" (p. 137), in other words it proves Baptism does not save! To turn back this Niagara of proof he resorts to two different maneuvers. First he mentions that Peter, "is here talking symbolically" and this is "clear not only from the fact that he explicitly says he is talking symbolically, but

also from the fact that he goes on to clarify that he is not talking about any literal washing

or 'removal of dirt from the body


(Boyd, p. 138). That there is symbolism is true; but it

... is not the symbolism Dr. Boyd would have you believe. It is the flood of Noah that

symbolizes baptism. The flood is the symbol, not baptism! His beloved NIV translation brings it our clearly: "In it (the ark -- ed.) only a few people, eight souls in all were saved through water, and this water (the Flood -- ed.) symbolizes baptism that now saves you "


(I Peter 3:21 NIV).The flood of Noah is the type, Baptism is the Anti-type or the

... reality. In the next clause Peter is quick to point out what gives baptism its saving efficacy, "the answer of a good conscience toward God." The literal water, H20, cannot, by itself, cleanse any sin! "The putting away of the filth of the flesh" or in other words the contact of water upon the skin, cannot by itself save. If this were true then any sinner splashing around in the lake or river where a baptism was in progress would be automatically saved. The whole idea is absurd and Oneness people have never taught that. The teaching that a mere application of water with a religious formula cleanses from sin, regardless of the subjects upon whom it is performed, '"baptismal regeneration." This is Roman Catholic, but not Pentecostal teaching. It is for this reason that Catholic

theology, dogmatically and "infallibly" teaches that if a baby, accident victim, comatose patient, lunatic, or whoever, has water applied to them, whether by sprinkling, pouring or spitting (!), in "the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," that person receives a cleansing from sin and an incorporation in the body of Christ, regardless! That is "baptismal regeneration" and is miles apart from the teaching of the UPCI or any other Oneness Organization, and Dr. Boyd knows it. We teach exactly what Peter expresses in this passage: that when the external rite of baptism is accompanied with "the answer of a good conscience," in other words, repentance and belief in Christ, then baptism will save or produce remission of sins. The "answer of a good conscience" is absolutely essential, otherwise all you are left with is an ineffectual bath of the "filth of the flesh". Dr. Boyd reverses the Bible completely when he says: "The reality that brings forth baptism is the act of repentance and the forgiveness of sins that produces the saint's ‘good conscience’" (Boyd, p.138).That's not what Peter said! A "good conscience," produced through repentance, "answers" God's command by being baptized in water; and this is what saves! Christ said the same thing in more succinct phraseology, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). Once years ago when I was teaching school I got involved in a discussion with some students on salvation. I made the comment that baptism was necessary for salvation. The next day one of the girls remarked to me that her preacher had told her the Bible never says you have to be baptized to be saved. I quoted 1 Peter 3:21 where it states, "Baptism doth also now save us" and asked her to show it to her preacher. The following day she returned to class and I asked her what her preacher had to say. She replied: "He said not to talk to you anymore." That ended that! Almost every text of scripture that touches on the subject of baptism indicates that it is essential to salvation. Baptism, coupled with repentance and faith, is the means by which the erring sinner is pardoned of his transgression. This is the New Testament message and the original plan of salvation. Also that this is the only plan recognized by those who wrote immediately after the close of the New Testament canon; some of whom were contemporary with John and Paul. It is the ancient teaching of the primitive Church.

"WASH AWAY THY SINS" ACTS 22:16There are other scriptures, which bear this out. When Paul converted, he was instructed by Annanias in the following words: "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16).Baptism in conjunction with repentance ("calling on the name of the Lord") leads to "washing away of sins." Paul never forgot or deviated, from the deposit of Truth he received that day in the house of Judas, on a street called Straight.

BATH OF REGENERATION We hear him telling Titus: "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration ("bath of regeneration" -- Greek), and renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3:5). He likened baptism to a "bath" or "washing" of regeneration, which was made possible "through Jesus Christ our Saviour" (v. 6). How much more evidence is needed to establish the saving efficacy of baptism?

PUT ON CHRIST IN BAPTISM Paul further teaches that we "put on Christ" by being "baptized into Christ" (Galatians 3:27). Do you want to be in Christ? Be baptized into

Him! Do you want to put on Christ? You put him on through water baptism. Therefore if you are not baptized "into Christ" you are still "outside" him. "Are you in the Church Triumphant? Are you in the Saviour's bride? Come and be baptized into the body and for evermore abide!"

BAPTIZED INTO NEWNESS OF LIFE Water baptism is a pre-requisite for "newness of life" and participation in the future resurrection from the dead at his coming: "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 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. For if we have been planted (i.e., baptism) together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection": (Rom. 6:3-5).

CIRCUMCISION OF THE HEART Paul also compares baptism with the Old Testament rite of circumcision. In the Old Testament circumcision removed part of the literal flesh of the male and incorporated him into Israel. But in the church age, baptism (the "circumcision of Christ") removes or "puts off the body of sins," and simultaneously incorporates us into the church, the new "Israel of God." This is brought out clearly in Colossians 2:11-12, "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. “The writer of Hebrews says the same thing. Our hearts are "sprinkled from an evil conscience" through repentance. Then our bodies are "washed" with pure water. Without this we cannot "draw near" to God "with a true heart," or have "full assurance of faith." (Heb. 10:23-24).

WHAT MORE IS NEEDED? If God wanted to say that baptism is absolutely essential for securing remission of sins and obtaining salvation, what more could he possibly have said? Every word conceivable, every metaphor imagined, every example observable is brought before us to drive home the point. Jesus said he that "believes and is baptized shall be saved,” unless a man is "born of water and Spirit he cannot enter God's Kingdom." Peter said to be baptized "for the remission of sins," because "baptism doth also now save us." Paul was told to be baptized to "wash away his sins." He therefore called it a "washing of regeneration" which "saves us." Baptism is the only means to "put on Christ," to get "in Christ," and to "rise with Christ." It puts off the "body of sins," and puts us in the "body of Christ." Did the Bible leave anything out? I think not.

NEO-TRINITARIAN INDECISION Even Dr. Boyd is forced to admit that after such a

scriptural bombardment that these passages "



show that baptism was regarded as

being an essential aspect of the ordinary saving experience of early believers. In the

strongest possible terms, baptism is associated with one's being united with Christ (Rom.

6:4-5), with one's 'putting on Christ' (Gal. 3:27), with the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38)




one's becoming a member of the New Covenant Community (Col. 2:11-12).

There is nothing to indicate that this act was perceived as being in any sense peripheral to

the Gospel" (Boyd, p. 135).He uses the word "essential" which means "necessary; indispensable" (Webster's unified Dictionary). Therefore baptism was a necessary and

indispensable "aspect of the ordinary saving experience," according to what Dr. Boyd states! Now having said that baptism is essential or "indispensable" to salvation, he spends the rest of the chapter dispensing with its essentiality! And this he begins to do on the following page: "This is not however, the same as saying that salvation was ever seen as being directly contingent upon baptism. The continual insistence in the New Testament that it is faith, and faith alone, that saves a person is itself to prove this" (Boyd, p. 136).Will he ever make up his mind? On page 135 baptism is an "essential aspect" of salvation, and "in the strongest possible terms, baptism is associated with the forgiveness of sins." By page 136, however, salvation is not "directly contingent upon baptism" and it is "faith, and faith alone that saves a person"! A lot can happen in one page! In the next nine pages follows the standard hackneyed arguments used to "explain away" the passages he previously designated as the "strongest possible terms!" In these type of books one must be very careful to mark your place in reading -- for one page can make a tremendous difference. I assume Neo-Trinitarians must be under a burden to please everyone in their camp on the baptismal issue, for "some like it hot, some like it cold, and some like it in the text nine pages old!" If you believe its essential read page 135. If you believe it’s not "contingent" and "faith alone" is all that's needed, then read page 136. While they're doing that, we'll be reading our Bible, all the pages!

MODERN DAY SUBSTITUTES How the modern day "evangelicals" with their waterless "dry cleaning" salvation wish they had the scriptural armory that we Oneness Pentecostals have. They would love to have just one text where the apostles coaxed someone to "accept Jesus as their very own personal Saviour"; but like old Mother Hubbard, they find that cupboard is bare! They search in vain where the Apostles told the people to "just slip up a hand" ("I see that hand, God bless you!"). But the Apostles were too busy telling people to "Repent and be baptized in Jesus' Name" for such nonsense. Now the 20th Century preachers even have Jesus running "for election" and the people are "to make a decision about Christ!" Or better still, they send in their "absentee ballot" by signing a decision card! (Can you imagine Peter passing out decision cards on the Day of Pentecost?). Then they plead with the unrepentant prospect to "allow Jesus to come into his heart and live." Reluctantly the new "convert" does this, but with the understanding that repentance is not needed (and is almost never even mentioned in these "plans of salvation"). And of course, no cleaning up or changing of lifestyle, for this would be "legalistic" and "bondage". You may keep smoking, drinking, acid rocking, wife swapping, living together "without benefit of clergy," -- this will all "drop off" eventually, if ever, as you "grow" and "mature". But don't worry about it. There's "no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus" (as long as you don't finish reading the verse, that is!) Yes, it’s all as simple as ABC -- Accept, Believe, Confess -- that's it! You're as good as signed, sealed and delivered. I know of an incident in Florida where a "worker" went into the Laundromat and asked 16 people there, who were busy doing laundry, if they believed Jesus was the Son of God and their Saviour. They all said "yes" and he proudly came out and announced that 16 people had just been born again! - Now if someone would just go in and inform them of the fact (before their clothes dry and they leave), I'm sure they would be quite surprised!

SALVATION AND "WHAT ONE DOES" Dr. Boyd criticizes the Oneness Movement in

a number of places because we espouse a God who actually has requirements and conditions, starting with baptism, for those who would serve him: "One is not saved in this Theology (Oneness - ed.) by virtue of being in a gracious, loving relationship with Christ alone. Rather salvation is tied, in a most particular fashion, to what one does" (Boyd, p. 194).And we have "no motivation to love and accept people unconditionally - whether inside or outside the church" (Boyd, p. 194).We are therefore very wrong for not accepting people "unconditionally" into our church membership, fornicators, blasphemers, prostitutes and drug dealers! No conditions, just come in! God doesn't require anything -- (we are told). But our God does require repentance and change of life (And we do too!) Dr. Boyd's God does not. "Rather, we know that God is naturally being the infinitely loving God, who he eternally exists, precisely when he enters into the unconditional relationship with us that he desires" (Boyd, p. 195).He further states:

"Because God is essentially social and loving, our loving relationship with him is not a sort of bridge to God we construct with our 'good behavior', as the Oneness Theology requires. Rather our relationship with Him is something God Himself accomplishes by opening up his loving sociality now to include us. Our acceptance to God is wholly based on God's performance, which manifests who God eternally is. It is not even related to our performance." (Boyd, p. 196).And this spills over into Church discipline. We are told:



love and accept people unconditionally -- whether inside or outside the Church" (p.

... 194).The results of this philosophy of God and salvation is tragic. The so-called "church" of today tolerates every abhorrent behavior and sinful lifestyle in the name of "love" and "acceptance". The plan of Salvation is reduced to a smile in God's direction. The only standard most preachers require today is that you impose no standard, on yourself or anyone else. Love, mercy, acceptance, tolerance, unconditionally are in. Repentance, judgment, accountability and holiness are out. And hell, of course, is never mentioned! David Wilkerson, who preaches a clear message of repentance and change, recently mentioned meeting so-called "born again believers" who could not see anything wrong in continuing in their jobs as "topless" dancers in a "nudie bar." After all, Christ had accepted them just as they were (topless and all!). And, naturally, they could "witness" for Christ at work! This kind of "mentality" is the direct result of the type of salvation Dr. Boyd advocates. After all, "it is not even related to our performance" (Boyd, p. 196). --And that must include those Go-Go Cages and on bar tops as well! "Every tree that bringeth forth not good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not everyone that sayeth unto me, Lord, Lord shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 7:20-21)."Doing the will of the Father" certainly sounds like a condition to be performed. How does it sound to you, dear reader? Much is said about the love of Christ, and the mercy of God. And this is certainly scriptural. But they have no use for the Christ who said: "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3), or "if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out; it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire" (Mark 9:47). "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:48). Though they love to quote Paul, selectively that is, they refuse to preach his gospel that men "should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance" (Acts 26:20). For it contains two words that do not fit into their "cheap grace" gospel, namely "repentance" and "works". Paul's audience didn't like it either, "For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me" (v.21). Any preacher who does set that forth as a true

requirement for salvation will be killed in the jumbo church ecclesiastical temples of today. "Faith and faith alone" is all they want to hear. It may be a "fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb. 10:31), but please don't mention it! For they like to picture God as a loving "Grandpa" in Heaven who tolerates any behavior in the name of love. And even though we shall "not escape if we neglect. so great salvation,” it would not be polite to mention it. It would run contrary to their idea of a very "understanding" God. I recently talked to one of these new type "Christians," a lady who owns a Christian bookstore, in which she offers for sale two blasphemous books. One of which offers the idea that Jesus' conception may have resulted from Mary having sex with Zechariahs the Priest!! And the other book advocated the church accepting and blessing pre-marital fornication and homosexual marriages!! When I pointed out to her the blasphemous contents of these books, she quickly informed me she had read them and was surprised that I was not as broad minded as she, or as tolerant! She then proceeded to inform me that the Holy Spirit guided her in the selection of these books! Perfectly good books for

evangelical Christians to feed upon according to her, because God "gave us brains," and we are "free” to decide what to believe! And this my friends is the end to which all such unapostolic, "just believe," "faith alone" preaching leads to -- People that cannot be disciplined, won't be disciplined, and insist on their right to believe anything that supports their corrupt lifestyle. And we must, according to Dr. Boyd, accept them unconditionally into the church. "Our performance is not the issue" remember. JESUS UNFOLDED THE









(MARK 16:16).

Pages: 151 through 166























































Jesus did not tell His disciples to baptize using the words Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. He told them to baptize in the NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. That name is JESUS!! JESUS is the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the Bright and Morning Star, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the Ending, the One that was, and is and is to come. THE ALMIGHTY. Every Apostle, every disciple, every writer of the New Testament was baptized in Jesus' Name. No one ever used the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost in baptism. WHY DO YOU? Acts 2:38 Acts 8:14-16 Acts 10:44-48 Acts 19:1-6 Acts 22:16

IS THE FORMULA AN UNNECESSARY DETAIL? Having established the importance and essentiality of water baptism, we now turn our attention to the "formula," or words to be spoken over the candidate. If baptism is essential, then it is essential that we do it correctly. Some will argue that God is not interested in details. But what constitutes a "detail"? Was it a "detail" that the death angel was looking for that dark night in Egypt when the first-born son was slain in every house that had no blood on the doorposts and lintels? Could the Jews have varied the "details" a little and painted the windows instead? Or used red paint instead of blood? After all, they look the same, and God is not "picky." But God was "picky" that night, and details did matter. Was it just a detail when Uzzah touched the ark to steady it as it made its way down the dusty road. If it were a detail, he was killed for it! Or what about the "details" concerning the Lord's Supper? Must we use bread and fruit of the vine? The Mormons use bread and water; the Quakers use nothing; and one blaspheming modernist in Maryland set beer and pretzels on the altar. He said "the details don't matter," "God wasn't picky," as long as the intent was correct! Where will it stop as ministers relegate everything they don't agree with to "circular file" of "unnecessary details"? Boyd sums up his opposition to our insistence on the use of the New Testament formula by saying: "In other words, the God presupposed in this theology will damn a person on a technicality" (p. 145).He feels of course, that the baptismal formula is a technicality! To obey God exactly in the requirements for salvation, as we in the Oneness faith believe in doing, is characterized as "a relationship between a meticulous perfectionistic employer and his fearful employees." (p. 145).And he refers to water baptism as a "procedure the believer performs for God" (p. 145).We don't view God as a "meticulous perfectionistic" just because he sets down clearly in the Word a very simple plan for the procurement of pardon. Neither is baptism something we perform for God. For it is we, not God, who receive remission of sins. We are the sole beneficiaries of that great experience. Moses was told to be careful to "make all things according to the pattern," that was shown him. Should we do less, and use "grace" as an

excuse for this "free-wheeling,” pick as you please cafeteria approach to religion? Peter silenced these arguments about the unimportance of the Name of Jesus and its employment when he said: Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name ("no second name") under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12And Jesus told us something also about those who do not have particular concern about even the least of his commandments (and baptism is certainly, not that):

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: Matthew 5:19That's the principle of obedience that Christ laid down. We are not to "pick and choose" what is a technicality and what is not! We Oneness are not "fearful employees" but joyously obedient followers of Christ, who look forward to hearing: "Come thou good and faithful

servant, enter into the joy of your Lord." And our desire is that we may say, as Christ did,

"Lo, I come

to do thy will, O God." (Heb. 10:7). Technicalities and all! For the "volume

... of the book" is full of them!

IS FEAR HEALTHY? Dr. Boyd apparently thinks "fear" has no place in a "relationship between a passionately loving Father and his undeserving children" (p. 145). But we all know the results of such thinking in today's society in which the children have absolutely no fear of their parents: Promiscuous lawlessness! Paul did not agree with Dr. Boyd's "no fear" theory for he wrote: Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling Phil 2:12Paul believed it was more important to tremble than to whistle! the writer to the Hebrews says: Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left [us] of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. Heb. 4:1Omitting the Name of Jesus in water baptism would certainly cause one to "come short", if we consider New Testament practice. Trinitarians better fear! What the modern church, which claims to be Christian, needs is a little more fear, instead of this "merrily we skip along" attitude that has developed over under the guise of "love" and "grace". The modern day evangelical convert is fast degenerating into an individual who gives his "heart to Jesus," lends his body to the devil, and keeps his mind for himself! And this is real grounds for fear! (and worry!).

THE FORMULA The New Testament is abundantly clear that Christian baptism was always performed in Jesus' name. This is the Formula and the New Testament knows no other! Dr. Boyd grudgingly hints this may be so: "Thus, even if the earliest disciples did

in fact baptize in Jesus' name, it should at least be very clear they did not do so with the "

Oneness significance

(p. 141).He further states: "The more informed Oneness

... Pentecostals like to argue that Jesus' Name baptism was practiced not only in Acts, but in the second and third century as well. And, indeed, there does exist a small amount of evidence to this effect." (p. 141)."If the earliest disciples did in fact baptize in Jesus' Name" he says! There's no "if" about it! We have the record, for "it is written." They baptized in no other way! He surely must admit this. He is an educated man, a graduate of Princeton! He reads the Greek; he has an open Bible; he has access to great libraries, he knows what scholarship says in this point. Before we examine the scriptural record, let us hear the conclusion reached by eminent scholars from just such a scriptural examination.

G.R. BEASLEY-MURRAY This Baptist scholar and historian, fluent in classic languages, was commissioned by the Baptist Church to write a definitive volume on water baptism for the benefit of the Baptist Church. His volume is a masterpiece of research. He has left no stone unturned. The work is truly the "be all" and "end all" on the baptismal controversy. He did not consider the evidence "a small amount" for he writes:

"There is not one example in the whole New Testament literature of a baptism taking place in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" (G.R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament, p. 82-83).He further proves that baptism was performed with the invocation of Jesus Name, was associated with remission of sins, and followed by a charismatic outpouring of the Holy Spirit. What does that sound like? And this was from a man who has no "axe to grind" -- 2:38 or otherwise!

WILHELM BOUSSET This German historian writes, "It is still essentially a baptism in the Name of Jesus" (Wilhelm Bousett, Kurios Christos, p. 295). He goes on to say, "The Testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula (in Jesus name - ed.) down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matt. 28:19, the trinitarian formula was only later inserted" (Bousett, p. 295).

DR. ARMITAGE ROBINSON He writes: "In the earliest times, however, baptism appears to have been administered 'in the name of Jesus Christ' (Acts 2:38, 10:48), or

'Lord Jesus' (Acts 8:16; 19:5). And on the use of the single baptismal formula St. Paul's "

argument in 1 Cor. 1:13 seems to be based

(Ephesians p. 234ff).To this conclusion of

... Dr. Armitage is added the endorsement of Dr. Charles Gore, in his masterful work on Christian history and doctrine entitled the "Reconstruction of Belief": "I have expressed disagreement with this in the past, but I desire to retract the disagreement. I think the evidence is fairly convincing that at the beginning only the single name was used. Down to the time of the Schoolmen this view prevailed, see St. Thomas Aquinas, Sum. Th. 3A qu. 66 a. 6" (Gore, 745-746).

DEAN STANLEY He writes in Christian Institutions: the following: "Doubtless the more comprehensive form in which baptism is now everywhere administered in the three-fold name -- soon superseded the simpler form of that in the 'Name of the Lord Jesus Only'."

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION AND ETHICS The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics edited by James Hastings states: "The formula used was 'in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ' or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the triune Name" (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 2, p. 384, 1958 edition).

HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible adds:

"Moreover, there is no mention in the New Testament of any one being baptized into the name of the Trinity" (James Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 1, p. 241, 1906 edition).

THE NEW INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA The New International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Vol 1, pages 395-396 under "Baptism" and

referring to the Trinitarian formula says: "But it is curious that the words are not given in any description of Christian Baptism until the time of Justin Martyr, and there they are not repeated exactly but in a slightly extended form. In every account of the performance of the rite in Apostolic times a much shorter formula is in use. The 3,000 believers were baptized on the day of Pentecost in the Name of Jesus Christ. The same formula was used at the Baptism of Cornelius and those that were with him. Indeed it would appear to have been the usual one, from Paul's question to the Corinthians: 'Were you baptized in the name of Paul?' No record of the Trinitarian formula can be discovered in the Acts of the Apostles. The difficulty was considered by the Fathers. “I imagine it was!

OTTO HEICK Otto Heick's objective in his comprehensive work on Christian thought is this: "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but gradually in the Name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought, vol. 1, p. 215).

SCHAFF-HERZOG ENCYCLOPEDIA Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious

Knowledge: "The New Testament knows only baptism in the Name of Jesus

which still

... occurs in the second and third centuries" (Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious

Knowledge, vol. 1, p.435, 1966 edition).

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA "We gather from Acts 19:4 that John had merely baptized in the Name of the Coming Messiah, without identifying him with Jesus of Nazareth. The Apostolic Age supplied the identification, and the normal use during it seems to have been, 'into Christ Jesus' or 'in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ' simply, or 'of the Lord Jesus Christ' (Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. 3, p. 368, 1910 edition).

BAPTIST SCHOLAR BEASLEY-MURRAY SPEAKS OUTG.R. Beasley-Murray, whom we previously cited, has produced what many consider the most comprehensive

study on Water Baptism yet. His book, Baptism in the New Testament, is required reading for any who would gain a true biblical understanding of this rite of Christian initiation. Beasley-Murray is one of the leading New Testament scholars in England, and is, as we have mentioned, a Baptist; but his research transcends denominational lines. F.F. Bruce

said concerning his book: "


is a work of first class scholarship, and it would be a

... tragedy if it were to become unobtainable. “After years of study a d investigation in the subject of water baptism, Beasley-Murray has determined that New Testament water baptism was performed exclusively with the single formula of "Jesus

Name;" was for the remission of sins; and was further associated with Charismatic Spirit reception. (If one is "in a hurry" the same conclusion can be obtained by studying the Articles of Faith of the United Pentecostal Church International or the Manual of the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World!) Let us read what Dr. Beasley-Murray has to say on baptism; the fruit of years of unbiased scrutinizing of scripture and history: "The Name of the Lord Jesus is called over the baptized. He therefore dedicates himself to the Lord and

is appropriated for him

This implies an effective action by which the Messiah enrolls

... the baptized as one of his subjects and accords to him a place in the Kingdom of God" (p.

102)."In the passage already cited, Acts 22:16, the exhortation to Paul, 'Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name,' implies that his sins will be

washed away in his baptism accompanied by prayer. The word of Peter in Acts 2:38 "

conveys a similar impression

(p. 102)."As has been mentioned, baptism in Acts is

... always administered 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or in the name of the Lord Jesus'" (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) (p. 100)."That the Name was on the lips of the candidate baptized as well as uttered by the baptizer is harmonious with the dual nature of baptism as an act of man and an act of God" (p. 100)."Cleansing is the primary meaning of baptism in all religious groups that have practiced it; but when baptism is administered in the name of the Lord who died and rose for the blotting out of sins (Acts 3:19), this aspect of its significance is immensely strengthened" (p. 103)."Again and again we have

had cause to remind ourselves that Christian Baptism is baptism in the Name of the Lord Jesus; in it the name of the Lord is called over the baptized, declaring him to be the Lord's, and the name is confessed and invoked by the baptized" (p. 120). "The significance of 'in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ' is presumed as known without further explanation: the name of Jesus Christ is called on by the baptismal candidate in appeal for washing, consecration and righteousness, and the name of Jesus Christ is

called over him by the baptizer, signifying that Jesus Christ

cleanses, consecrates, and

... justifies him" (p. 166).Dr. Beasley-Murray feels that Paul's expression, 'but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God," in 1 Corinthians

6:11, is a direct reference to the Jesus name baptismal formula: " 'In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ' reflects the use of the name in the baptismal formula" (p. 163).He also is certain that Paul's reference to the "Spirit of our God" links water baptism in Jesus' Name with Spirit Baptism: "That the experience of the Spirit is linked with baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus needs no further demonstration after our discussion of the evidence on this matter in the Book of Acts" (p. 163).He also feels it is "difficult to disassociate the 'washing' of 1 Cor. 6:11 from the baptismal cleansing" (p. 163).So do we! Interestingly enough, Dr. Beasley-Murray feels that 1 Cor. 6:11 might have been used after Paul's death as the basis for the newly evolving Trinitarian formula which eventually replaced the original apostolic Jesus' name formula. The reason for this suggestion is that 1 Cor. 6:11 mentions Jesus, the Spirit, and God in one paragraph. Trinitarian innovators might have seized that to justify their new "replacement" formula. He writes: "This is insufficient evidence for the existence in Paul's time of a baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but it provides a hint of the way in which the Trinitarian "

formula arose

(p. 167).Dr. Beasley-Murray is also in agreement with Oneness

... Pentecostalism in linking a Charismatic Spirit Baptism with water baptism in Jesus' name. He writes: "The third and perhaps most impressive gift of God in baptism is the Spirit, the possession of which was frequently accompanied in the earliest church by

spectacular Charismatic gifts and signs. That the gift should be associated with baptism is to be expected. For baptism in the name of the Messiah Jesus related the believer to the Lord of the kingdom, who had received the Spirit from the Father that he might pour him

forth upon his people



(p. 104)."



cannot doubt that this inward sealing of the Spirit

is conceived as taking place in baptism in the name of Jesus, when the name was invoked

and called over the baptized


(p. 174)."thus the 'seal of the Spirit' is neither baptism in

... water, nor a baptism in the Spirit divorced from the rite of baptism; it is the 'Baptism of the Spirit' in association with the laying of the name of Jesus on a believer in the rite of baptism" (p. 174)."The seal of the Spirit however, is in inward possession which none but God can see, apart from its effects in character, behavior, and the Charismata" (p.

175).There is all the evidence one needs: over 400 pages of unbiased research conducted by a world-renowned scholar of the Baptist Faith. His conclusion? Baptism in Jesus' name for the remission of sins, accompanied by Spirit baptism with charismatic evidences! Why was none of this impressive array of evidence for the Jesus' name formula ever mentioned by Dr. Boyd? Why, in the face of his mountain of research, did Dr. Boyd fail to quote it even once? A scholar like Beasley-Murray is known in every theological seminary, his reputation spans two continents, he carries the highest endorsements, and his name occurs in many bibliographies. Yet he is never once called to the stand by Dr. Boyd respecting the Jesus name formula. Is this type of "exegesis" indicative of future trends in presenting "all the facts?" Forbid it, Almighty God!

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH GOES TO "CONFESSION “Perhaps the most astonishing proof of the alteration of the baptismal formula from Jesus name to triune titles comes from the "alternators" themselves -- the Catholic Church! Some years ago, before I ever dreamed I would be writing this book, I was driving past a thrift store when the Lord impressed on me to stop and go in. I was not in the habit of doing this, but I obeyed. Once inside the Lord directed me to a cabinet of old used books. I began to search through them. There among the old books I found an official Catholic Catechism, with the Bishop's "imprimatur" and "nihil obstat." These are Latin terms which means the book is officially approved as containing "nothing objectionable" or contrary to Catholic teaching. Guided by the Lord I turned to the section dealing with water baptism. It was then I realized why the Lord had been so patiently directing my steps. I was astonished to read this official Catholic admission concerning the original baptismal formula: IN THIS ROMAN CATHOLIC CATECHISM, THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH CLEARLY RECOGNIZES THAT THE ORIGINAL BAPTISM WAS, "IN THE NAME OF JESUS" AND MUST HAVE BEEN CHANGED AFTER THE DISCIPLES' DEATH.

"The earliest practice of the Church was probably to baptize converts 'in the name of Jesus' (Acts 10:48; 19:5) since in baptism it was his Lordship they confessed and into his body they were incorporated" (An American Catholic Catechism, p. 112).What more is needed? As Augustine said, "Rome has spoken; case closed!" If that is not enough, then surely this quote from an equally "official" Catholic Encyclopedia will provide the final "coup de grace" to this painfully recalcitrant stonewalling by Trinitarians. It reads as follows: "An explicit reference to the Trinitarian formula of Baptism cannot be found in the first century" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1967, p. 59)."Higher mathematics" can surely be employed here by our opponents to put "two and two together." For if the original formula was baptism in Jesus' name (An American Catholic Catechism), and the Trinitarian formula was unheard of for at least 100 years (New Catholic Encyclopedia), then what conclusion is possible other than one which maintains that the Triadic formula for baptism was an unapostolic invention, birthed late in time, and devoid of New Testament precedent or approbation. The Catholics admit it, the Baptists admit it, scholars admit it, historians admit it -- in fact, among most critical New Testament researchers it's not even considered a debatable point any longer! Why doesn't Dr. Boyd come in? It’s getting awfully cold out there. He once warmed himself by the fires of this great truth, till an "ill wind" blew him elsewhere. God grant that he return is my ascending prayer.

WILLISTON WALKER Evidence continues to pour down upon u from every direction. Williston Walker, noted historian adds: "With the early disciples generally baptism was 'in the Name of Jesus Christ'" (Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, p.


ENCYCLOPEDIA BIBLICA And from the Encyclopedia Biblica: " 'In the Name of Jesus

Christ' or 'of the Lord Jesus.’ The former expression is used in Acts 2:38 and 10:48, The

latter is used in Acts 8:16 and 19:5. See also Acts 22:16

From these passages, and from

... Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 1:13 ('Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the Name of Paul?') 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 Baptismal Confession appears to have been single -- not triple, as was the later creed." (Encyclopedia Biblica, vol. 1, p. 473, 1899 edition).Thus we have it from the word of scholarship and history. The verdict is in -- Baptism in Jesus Name. This is unbiased evidence. Not one of these men were personally baptized in Jesus Name. If they espoused any faith at all, it was Trinitarian. But concerning the Triune baptismal formula they are unanimous -- "not one example in the whole New Testament," "doubtless" of later origin, "no evidence" for its use, "no mention of it in the New testament," "not given in any description" in the New Testament, and "no record can be discovered in the Acts." This is all quite damaging to Dr. Boyd's "if the earliest disciples" theory. I wouldn't want to be in court with these witnesses taking stand against me. Their testimony for "Jesus Name" being the original formula is equally compelling. For they consider the evidence "overwhelming" and "convincing" being from "the earliest times," and "found in every account." they find that "at the beginning" it is only "the single name." the "New Testament knows only baptism in the Name of Jesus" for it was "administered from the earliest times" and "confirmed" by "baptismal confessions." What can Dr. Boyd and fellow Trinitarians say in the face of all this evidence? Do they also believe the earth is flat?

NEW TESTAMENT ACCOUNTS These scholars all independently reached the same conclusion through an examination of the baptismal accounts in the Book of Acts and the witness of history. Let us turn our attention to the record of baptisms in the New Testament Church.

JERUSALEM The Jews on the day of Pentecost, together with their Gentile proselytes were commanded to Repent and be baptized every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).

SAMARIA Phillip the evangelist went there preaching the "Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8:12). Where upon the Samaritans in a great citywide revival were "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Act 8:16).

CAESAREA Cornelius, and those of his household, the first Gentile believers, listened carefully to Peter's sermon that through Jesus' Name "whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” During the sermon they were filled with the Holy Ghost and

Peter therefore commanded that they should "be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 10:48 R.V.). Being filled with the Holy Ghost did not excuse them from baptism in Jesus Name, but rather made it incumbent upon them!

EPHESUS Paul met some converts who knew only the teaching of John the Baptist, having been baptized of him. Paul, in spite of this, ordered their rebaptism in Jesus' Name after they learned fully of Christ: And when they heard this they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 19:5).Anyone learning this truth needs to be "rebaptized" from whatever other form they had.

ETHIOPIA Phillip joined himself to the chariot of the Ethiopian Eunuch, who was traveling to his homeland, and preached Jesus unto him. When the Ethiopian believed on Jesus Christ, "They went down both into the water, both Phillip and the Eunuch; and he baptized him" (Acts 8:38). What was Phillip's formula for baptism? Acts 8:16 informs us that it was "in the name of the Lord Jesus." he certainly wouldn't change his formula in one day.

DAMASCUS Paul, blinded by his experience with Christ on the Damascus Road, makes his way to that city to await healing and further instruction. This is quick to arrive as Annanias enters the house and informs him: "And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the Name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16). Paul was baptized with the "invocation of the Name of the Lord Jesus." This required having the Name called "upon" him. Acts 15:17.

CORINTH Paul, writing to this church, which was torn by splits, puts these questions to them: Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Cor. 1:13).The obvious answers are: Paul was not crucified for them, Christ was; they were not baptized in the Name of Paul, but in the Name of Christ. Unless they were baptized in the name of the undivided Christ, his argument would not make sense. Corinth was baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ.

ROME The Church at Rome was "baptized into Jesus Christ": Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? (Rom 6:3).

Gladiate Galatians likewise were baptized into the Name of Jesus Christ: For as man of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ (Gal. 3:27).

Closeted Colossians were also "buried with Christ in baptism" (Col. 2:12), and this is defined in Rom. 6:3 as a baptism "into Jesus Christ". Hence the Colossians received the one Apostolic baptism -- in the name of Jesus Christ! All of the above mentioned churches were founded by either Peter or Paul or Phillip. We know Peter's formula was

"in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38, 10:48), Phillip's was in the Name of the Lord

Jesus (8:16). And the one Paul used was the same (Acts 19:5) three witnesses, let every thing be established.


In the mouth of two or


Church Council, unlike subsequent Catholic Councils, ruled that the Name of the Lord Jesus was to be called upon all Gentile Converts. We read this in Acts 15:14-17 where it is stated that "God at the first did visit the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name." And how is this done? We are not left in the dark: "That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things." Now I ask, in what rite or ordinance does a believer have the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ called "upon him" if it is not baptism in that Name? Of all the Church Councils and their decrees that Trinitarians love to quote, why do they always pass this one by? Not much is said about this baptismal creed, is there?

WHAT ABOUT MATTHEW 28:19?The only thing that remains now is to reconcile these references with our Lord's command in Matthew 28:19 in which the Apostles are commanded to "teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." And this task is easy to do. And it is precisely in linking this command with the references in Acts that produces automatically the reconciliation and perfect agreement of all texts concerning water baptism.

REVELATION AND RECONCILIATION To reconcile the command by Christ in Matthew 28:19 to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" wit the passages in Acts, in which all converts were baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" or "in the name of the Lord Jesus" is the task now before us. Ingersoll, the famous atheist orator, frequently used this apparent contradiction to show that the Bible contained discrepancies. But it is neither a discrepancy nor a contradiction. If men would cease looking to church councils for their "enlightenment,” and return to the "fountain of living waters,” they would begin to see "all things clearly." Boyd is sure that "when Jesus commands us to baptize 'in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit' he is not cryptically making some esoteric self-reference that must be decoded for believers to be baptized correctly and therefore saved" (Boyd, p. 143).But in so stating, he contradicts the Lord, for Jesus told His disciples that he was indeed speaking of the Father "cryptically" as Dr. Boyd phrases it. These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs (parables -- margin): but the time cometh when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs (parables), but I will show plainly of the Father (John 16:25).A parable must be "decoded" for it is "cryptic". His references to the Father were in just such a category;

not "plain" but "parabolic". But Christ promised a time when the Spirit would arrive (John 14:16-19), then they would get the promised revelation concerning the Father: at that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. (John 14:20).And that day, of course, would be Pentecost. It was on that day the Apostles would

receive the promised Revelation mentioned in Luke 10:22: ...


no man knoweth who

the Son is but the Father; and who the Father is but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him. By Christ's own definition, the baptismal reference in Matt. 28:19 to the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" was one of His parabolic statements, that would not be made plain until the day, namely Pentecost, when they would receive the promised Revelation and have the father shown plainly to them! And this occurred and right on time.

REVELATION AT PENTECOST Carl Brumback in his book, God in Three Persons,

disputes the Apostles received any Godhead revelation on Pentecost and demands we show where it was received. "It is necessary for the Oneness to assume that Peter at

Pentecost received a 'revelation' that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, for "

it is not written!


(Brumback, p. 77).But it is written and "plain to him that

understandeth and right to them that find knowledge" (Proverbs 8:9)! At the climax of his sermon, Peter declares by divine revelation: Therefore let all the House of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye crucified, both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36).It is obvious that something startling and apparently paradoxical is being presented by the qualifying terms "same" and "both." That one and the selfsame person could be both Lord and Christ, is something that only God could have made happen! It s a miracle! The word "Lord" here is "Kyrios," which is the Greek term used in the New Testament for Jehovah. Wherever Jehovah appears in the Old Testament, it is translated in the New by Kyrios. Thus the Old Testament phrase in Joel that "whosoever shall call upon the name of Jehovah shall be saved," is rendered in the New Testament by "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord (Kyrios) shall be saved." So Peter, in revealing Jesus as Lord and Christ, is actually announcing that Jesus is both Jehovah and Messiah -- the same person is both! Calling him Jehovah is the equivalent of calling him God or Father, for the Jews believed in no other God than God the Father who had revealed Himself under the Name Jehovah (Mal. 2:10, Is. 63:16; 64:8 and John 8:41). This same Jesus is also the Christ, the Anointed Man, the Son of God who was born to save "his people from their sins." Acts 4:26 makes it quote clear that Lord and Christ is simply another way of saying Father and Son; and Jesus is both! It is now very "plain,” no longer a "parable," but truly "revealed." This same Jesus is both Father and Son, Jehovah and Christ, divine and human, God and Son of God, in the one selfsame person of our Lord Jesus Christ! And God has made this to happen, by raising Christ from the dead and simultaneously taking up "residence" in His immortal glorified temple. So it could be truly said that in Christ "dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." The Father is dwelling in the Son (John 14:10). Jehovah is embodied in the flesh of His Messiah, the Christ. That is why when the Jews cried out asking what to do, Peter commanded them to be baptized in Jesus' Name -- for it is the Name of the Father, and of the Son; for this same Jesus is both! Peter's command in Acts 2:38 is the divinely sanctioned interpretation of what it means to be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Hoy Spirit. And that's the only Biblical explanation ever given!

MATTHEW 28:19 EXPLAINED Let us now revisit Matthew 28:19 in the light of this revelation: The first thing we notice is that Jesus refers to the One Name and One Name Only. For "Name" is in the singular. He is not speaking about "names," plural, but one name, singular. And this One Name is -- the Name of the father, and also of the Son, and even more, it is also the Name of the Holy Spirit. And it is in this One Name of the Godhead we are to baptize.

THEOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT Dr. Boyd tries to downplay the significance of the singular name in Matt 28:19 as of no great consequence: "The bottom line is that there need be nothing theologically significant about the singularity of ‘the Name’ in Matt. 28:19" (Boyd, p. 143). But my library is filled with book sin, which Trinitarians have pondered and tried to explain this singularity, and come up with all sorts of revelations of

their own! Many come close to the truth, but because like all Trinitarians, they are "reasoning in chains", they never arrive. For they are not allowed to stray too far from their man devised creeds, which bind them fast to their "distinct person theory." Take for example this quote from Robert L. Reymond, Presbyterian: "Jesus does not say 'into the

names (plural) of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' ...

What he does say is

this, 'into the name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit'; first

asserting the unity of the three by combining them all within the bounds of single name, "

and then throwing into emphasis the distinction of each


(Robert L. Reymond, Jesus

Divine Messiah, p. 84).This "singular name" comment was so theologically appealing that Ron Rhodes has reproduced it in his book, Christ Before the Manger, on. p. 28. Andrew Jukes found it intriguing and also "theologically significant" for he writes: "First then 'the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost' is one name, not three or many. Our Lord did not say, 'Baptizing them into the names' but 'into the name, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit'" (Andrew Jukes, The Names of God, p. 174-175).So we are not the only ones who notice something "theologically significant" about the singular name! But the significance of it is not in uniting "three persons" but in revealing One!

FINDING THE ONE NAME Seeing Jesus declared there is but one name common to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, let us find that name scripturally. THE NAME OF THE SON We shall start to solve this equation by considering the middle factor first. What is the Name of the Son? This is easy and all Christendom is in agreement. The Name of the Son is Jesus. "And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins" Matt 1:21. But the writer of Hebrews tells us that Jesus "inherited" his name, for "he hat by inheritance, obtained a more excellent name" (Heb. 1:4). From whom did he therefore inherit this name; the name the angel brought down from heaven?

THE NAME OF THE FATHER Jesus does not leave us in doubt as to whose name it was he bore. In John 5:43 he declares: 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. This name was not "his own name," but had been His Father's name before Him! He came bearing the Name of the Father. The name Jesus is also the Father's name! The original Greek of John 17:11,12 brings this out clearly. I am quoting from the Revised Version: Holy Father, keep them in thy Name, which thou has given me and I kept them in Thy Name, which Thou has given me. Weymouth’s Translation reads: I have kept them in thy Name -- The Name Thou hast given me to bear. No wonder Christ could say "I have manifested thy name!" (John 17:6). The only name he ever manifested was "Jesus" for "his name was spread abroad" (Mark 6:14). Is it unusual for a Father and Son to have the same name? Doesn't every legitimate Son bear his father's name? Jesus said "I have declared unto them thy Name, and will declare it" (John 17:26). Aren't the mighty signs and wonders being done in Jesus' Name, and the Baptisms being performed in Jesus' Name, a fulfillment of Christ's prophecy that he "will declare it." MEANING OF THE NAME OF JESUS And why should there be any doubt that Jesus is also the name of the Father? The Name Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew "Jahoshea" (or Joshua) which means "Jehovah the Saviour." When you say the Name Jesus, you are actually saying in contracted form "Jehovah the Saviour." The

"Je" is from "Jehovah,” God’s revealed name in the Old Testament. Even Trinitarians admit the name Jehovah is applied to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, their entire "Trinity." Then why would not the name Jesus (Jehovah-Saviour) be equally applicable to all "three persons," especially seeing that all three play an indispensable part in the plan of Salvation? We have thus seen the name of the Father and of the Son is included in the Name of Jesus. All that remains is to determine the Name of the Holy Ghost.

NAME OF THE HOLY GHOST The final piece of this Name revelation falls into place beautifully. Like the Temple of Solomon, in which each stone was first quarried and polished, and then brought to Jerusalem and silently fitted into place, so the name of the Holy Ghost moves by divine utterance into the completed trilogy. But the Comforter,

which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My Name, he shall teach you all


(John 14:26).-- The Comforter, the Holy Spirit, comes to earth in Jesus' Name,

... bearing Jesus' name, and manifesting it. How could it be otherwise for the Comforter is Jesus?! I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you. (John 14:18).For this same reason he is called the Spirit of Christ, and Christ (Romans 8:9-10). "Christ in you" (Col. 1:27), or in other words, Christ in His Spirit nature come to dwell in us.

NAME OF THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST IS JESUS Thus we have seen demonstrated clearly and simply from the lips of Christ Himself that the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is Jesus. For the Son's Name is Jesus, and He bore the Father's Name, who sent the Spirit with the same Name! In Proverbs we are asked: Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what [is] his name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell? Prov 30:4Thanks to Oneness light -- we can tell! It is Jesus!

THE APOSTLES AGREE That our conclusion is correct concerning the "Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" is proven by the witness of the Apostles. For they were commanded to baptize in the one name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. All their baptisms were performed in the Name of Jesus. therefore by comparison it is quickly seen that they recognized the name of Jesus as the one Name referred to in Matt 28:19. (See Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; 22:16). And it is through this name, and no other, that the door to cleanness and justification is open to us through water baptism. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 1Cor 6:11

THE "NAMELESS" BAPTISM Panicking in the face of this tidal wave of scriptural evidence for Baptism in Jesus' Name, Dr. Boyd unveils to our astonished eyes one of the most bizarre theories ever advanced against the truth. He decided to take the "bull by the horns" and throw out all baptismal formulas, trinitarian and Oneness, and reduce Christian baptism to a wordless initiation! His desperation to rid the church of the New testament Formula of Jesus' Name seems to know no bounds. He is even willing to sacrifice the cherished Trinitarian formula as the price to pay. He has, so to speak, untie the Gordian Knot by cutting it in two! Nettled by the truth of the New Testament, and cornered by Church History, he opts to throw out not only "the baby with the bathwater"

but the bathtub also! Hear him as he boldly goes "where angels fear to tread." We read, "Because the Semitic phrase 'in the name of ' could have such a wide variety of meanings, there is no more reason to take the Acts phrase 'in the Name of Jesus' as an audible liturgical formula than there is to think that the Matthean formula was to be taken like this" (p. 111).Better no formula, than "Jesus' Name" is his motto. We have often pointed out to Trinitarians in the past that if the phrase "in the name of Jesus" is interpreted to only mean "by the authority of" and thereby eliminated as a spoken formula, then the same interpretation must be applied to "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost" and that too would be eliminated as a formula. The point we were trying to make was that the whole interpretation was wrong in the first place. Most Trinitarians have seen it that way once it was pointed out, and abandoned that interpretation rather than part wit their formula. Dr. Boyd on the other hand has decided to use this incorrect interpretation (as I will prove) to eliminate both formulas! Of course to do this he flies in the face of two thousand years of Church practice, and proposes something even the Arian heretics dared not try. Augustine, Tertullian, Aquinas, the Cappodocians and every other "great saint" of the church he so admires would curse him for it (and some like the "great reformer" John Calvin, would burn him for it!)

THE EFFECT OF THE "NO-NAME" DOCTRINE One can only imagine the effect such a "pro-choice", renegade theory would unleash in the Church World if it were taken seriously (which, Thank God, no one does!) Ministers would begin tailor fitting their own baptismal formulas to meet the occasion. Compromises would be made to the point of lunacy. I can almost hear some modern day "love is all that matters" preacher standing on the shore line in California (why is it always California?) with his new convert:

MINISTER: And what say ye of the "Faith once delivered to the saints?" CANDIDATE: I think it's neat, man! MINISTER: And what think ye of the Christ? CANDIDATE: He was cool, like really cool, you follow? MINISTER: Yes, yes, I follow, "Upon the confession of your faith I now Baptize you into the neatness of Christianity and the coolness of Christ. Amen! “Don’t think I am exaggerating or being ludicrous for the sake of argument. Today's' ever adapting, relativistic church, needs little encouragement to fly off into such "meaningful" excursions into "restructuring." The "wild blue yonder" is always beckoning them!

OPENING PANDORA'S BOX Dr. Boyd would open such a Pandora's Box, and rob baptism of any fixed scriptural significance, just to fulfill some strange obsession against Oneness and anything related to it. His "latest thing down the tubes" theory is as unacceptable as it is bizarre -- and totally unnecessary. I had once heard of a Pastor in the Midwest who pronounced the baptismal formula in "unknown tongues" so as to avoid any confrontation over which formula was correct! And I though that would never be topped in my lifetime. But I am afraid that in this category, Dr. Boyd sweeps away an Oscar for Best Performance.

IS THE FORMULA VERBAL? What he is saying through his "Semitic phrase" arguments is simply that when the phrase "in the name of Jesus Christ" occurs in Acts it does not represent something verbal or actually uttered. It is a rather saccharine-like atmosphere or state of mind: "When it is said that certain believers were baptized 'in the

Name of the lord Jesus,' this need mean nothing more than what is meant by giving a cup of cold water to someone 'in the name of a disciple' " (Boyd, p. 144).He goes on: "It merely means that baptism 'for the forgiveness of sins' derives its significance and beauty from the person of Jesus Christ to whom it centrally points" (p. 144).And all this without saying His Name; you just point, don't talk! In fact he says there was no evidence before the fourth century "that the words spoken over a candidate at baptism were any big deal." (p. 145). No big deal, you see, just say what you want; let’s get it over with! Thank God we are not left to his interpretation, but we have the record, for again "it is written!"

PROOF OF VERBAL FORMULA Does "in the name of Jesus" mean to verbally pronounce it? It certainly does! Here is the proof: The disciples were commanded to heal the sick and cast out devils in "Jesus' Name" (Mark 16:17-18). How did they use the name? Verbally! Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk. Acts 3:6It was quite a "big deal" for that poor lame man, for he went into the temple "walking, and leaping, and praising God." (v. 8). Does Dr. Boyd suppose it would have been just as effective if Peter and John had just pointed up to Heaven, silently, and smiled, until the lame man understood the "significance and beauty" of it all? The Apostles felt differently; they uttered the Name! Another case comes to mind. This one involving the demon possession of a certain damsel. 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. Acts 16:18It must have been a "big deal" for the demon, for "he came out the same hour." And it was a verbally uttered formula that did it. When they prayed "in Jesus' Name" they said it. The apostolic prayer in Acts 4 concludes By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus Acts





they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled

together Acts 4:31.Whether this was "significant and beautiful " I cannot tell, but it certainly was powerful! If healing "in Jesus Name" was verbal, and if expelling demons "in Jesus Name" was verbal, and if praying "in Jesus Name" was verbal, why does Dr. Boyd insist baptism "in Jesus' Name" was not? I prefer the scriptural examples, to his "Semitic theories."

SCHOLARS TESTIFY TO VERBAL FORMULA Now for the testimony of Greek Scholarship. Arndt and Gingrich point out that the phrase "in the name of" (in to onomati) used with God or Jesus means in most cases "with mention of the name, while naming or calling on the name" (William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 572). The same authorities also mention that the verb "called" (epikoleo) in Acts 15:17 ("all the gentiles upon whom my name is called") means: "someone's name is called over someone to designate the latter as property of the former's" (p. 572).This same verb "called" is used in James 2:7 which says: Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? James 2:7The Amplified Bible's Commentary states that this is "the Name of Christ invoked at baptism" (The Amplified Bible, p. 360). Dr. Gore writes in his thoroughly researched history of early church practice: "And the shelter of that name belongs to those only who have had it invoked upon them in baptism and have received the Spirit of Jesus within them." (Gore, Reconstruction, p. 640).Dr. Armitage Robinson says: "It is plain that the phrase 'in

the name of' indicates some solemn utterance by the accompaniment of which the washing of water is made to be no ordinary bath, but the sacrament of baptism" (Robinson, Ephesians, p. 234).He further states: "It is probable then that the 'name' here referred to (in 1 Cor. 1:13 -- ed.) is the solemn mention of the Lord Jesus Christ in connection with the rite of baptism whether as the confession made by the candidate, or as the formula employed by the ministrant" (Robinson, Ephesians, p. 234).

PICK A PHRASE, ANY PHRASE! Everything draws to the same conclusion, -- (Bible Scholarship, Linguistics, Reason) -- something had to have been said, something was said, and that something was the Name of Jesus. But this will not do for Dr. Boyd. On pages 142 to 143 he serves up no less than eight different interpretations of what "in the name of" could mean; what he calls a "wide variety of applications." And we'll see how wide! It could mean: "in relation to," "with respect to its intentions," "with an obligation towards," "in the authority of," or "a principal of behavior. “It could even mean "With a view towards" "in the light of" or "in appreciation of. “Take one of them, or two of them, any of them, all of them, or none of them! Just so you don't verbally utter the name of Jesus. You have quite a selection so don't be hasty. If one "doesn't get you out of it" the next one will. Plenty of grass for this mill! It seems strange indeed that any Christian would expend so much energy trying to prevent the Name of Jesus from being spoken.

APOSTOLIC APPLICATION How long shall [this] be in the heart of the prophets that prophesy lies? yea, [they are] prophets of the deceit of their own heart; Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbor, Jeremiah 23:26-27The Apostles certainly didn't have this attitude. They were commanded to "speak henceforth to no man in this name" (Acts 4:17) and that they "should not teach in this name" (Acts 5:28). They certainly were doing more than just "pointing" or "thinking". They must have been wielding that Name verbally. Saul's goal was to destroy "them that call on His Name" (Acts 9:21). He must have heard something! When the Jewish rulers demanded of Peter and John "by what power or by what name have ye done this?" (Acts 4:7), Peter answered for all Oneness believers when he verbally said, "By the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead." (v.10) 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

PHANTOM FORMULAS Thus in an attempt to eliminate any formula for baptism, Dr. Boyd has gotten his feet all tangled up in flight. He first maintained that there was a "small amount of evidence in favour of the Jesus' Name formula" (p. 141). Then he refers to third century references to "the Trinitarian Formula or mode for baptism 'along side’ the supposed 'Jesus Only formula' " (p. 141). Next he finds the Trinitarian formula becomes "the dominant formula for baptism" from the beginning of the Second Century on. (p. 142). And finally ending on the high note that there really was no formula at all, Trinitarian or Oneness! (p. 143). These formulas are very ethereal -- first they exist "side by side," then one is "dominant" over the other, and then we must learn they weren't there at all! Under what lack of evidence must a writer labour who resorts to such argument? Phantom formulas that appear and disappear like apparitions in the night!


Please take special note of the section in BOLD and UNDERLINED part below.

Results for trinity

Under section name:

Trinitarian Theology

Baptism as the beginning lesson

Baptism itself is generally conferred with the Trinitarian formula, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19); and Basil the Great (330–379) declared: "We are bound to be baptized in the terms we have received, and to profess faith in the terms in which we have been baptized." "This is the Faith of our baptism," the First Council of Constantinople declared (382), "that teaches us to believe in the Name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. According to this Faith there is one Godhead, Power, and Being of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Matthew 28:19 may be taken to indicate that baptism was associated with this Trinitarian formula from the earliest decades of the Church's existence.[28] The formula is found in the Didache,[29] Ignatius,[30] Tertullian,[31] Hippolytus,[32] Cyprian,[33] and Gregory Thaumaturgus.[34] Though the formula has early attestation, the Acts of the Apostles only mentions believers being baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38, 10:48) and "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 8:16, Acts 19:5). There are no Biblical references to baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit outside of Matthew 28:19, nor references to baptism in the name of (the Lord) Jesus (Christ) outside the Acts of the Apostles.[35]


From the website: //

Come Let Us Reason Together Ministries

Topic: TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) Unites Oneness Pentecostals with Trinitarians

This is an excerpt from TBN 3/8/99 with a Trinitarian Bishop Clarence McClendon and Oneness Pentecostal Bishop Noel Jones

‘Oneness Pentecostalism – This teaching found support with two early Bishops of Rome, Zephyrinus and Callistus. Zephyrinus was the head Bishop at the time and was attracted to Modalistic view. Caught between two major factions trying to keep the peace, he was advised by his soon to be successor Callistus on how to keep both sides satisfied. After Zephyrinus died in 217 A.D. Callistus kept his policy and Modalism became the official theory in Rome for almost a generation.

Adolf von Harnack in his book ‘The History of Dogma’ actually states, “Modalism… was for almost a generation the official theory in Rome.”


The Old Landmark: Celebrating Apostolic Heritage

‘Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.’ Prov. 22.28

“For the Remission of Sins”: Ancient Writings on the Efficacy of Baptism[13]

“Water baptism is the most ancient rite in Christianity, and the New Testament is replete with examples of baptism by immersion from John’s baptism of repentance in the River Jordan to the proselytes of the Apostles to the epistolary metaphors of baptism as burial with Christ (Rom. 6:4) and Noah’s ark (I Pt. 3.20-21). While most Christian denominations observe some ordinance of baptism, the majority of Protestants reduce the act to a mere public profession of faith, decrying the doctrine of remission of sins in baptism as “salvation by works” rather than “salvation by grace.” In fact, neither biblical exegesis nor history divides baptism from salvation. Patristical writings, which are non- canonical, post-Apostolic epistles and apologetics, provide ample evidence that early Christians universally accepted water baptism as the sole mode for remitting sins.”

“St. Clement, purportedly the same Clement named by Paul in Philippians, asks in a letter

to the Corinthians: ”

shall we, if we keep not our baptism pure and undefiled, come

. . . into the kingdom of God?” (Hoole 57). Clearly, Clement identifies Christian baptism as the moment of cleansing. St. Barnabas examines foreshadowing of baptism and the cross in the Old Testament: “Concerning the water, it is written with respect to Israel, how that they will not receive the baptism that bringeth remission of sins, but will establish one for themselves” (Hoole 86). Further, he writes: “Learn ye: having received the remission of our sins, and having hoped upon the name of the Lord, we have become new, having been again created entirely” (Hoole 97). These passages explicitly connect the erasure of sins with water baptism, and Barnabas explains that this accompanies hoping on the Name of the Lord, the most primitive apostolic baptismal formula.”

“The Shepherd of Hermas, a 2nd century apocalyptic work, supports both the notion of

baptism by immersion and for spiritual cleansing: ”

we went down into the water and

. . . obtained remission of our former sins” (Lightfoot 425). Hermas, like Barnabas, refers to invocation of the Name of Jesus in the rite: “‘For before a man,’ saith he, ‘has borne the name of [the Son of] God, he is dead; but when he has received the seal, he layeth aside

his deadness, and resumeth life. The seal then is the water: so they go down into the water dead, and they come up alive” (Lightfoot 472). Baptism in the Name of Jesus is, in Hermas, regenerative.”

“Justin Martyr expanded the biblical baptismal formula to “in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit”, but he retained the Apostolic teaching of baptism for the remission of sins: “[We] may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings” (Roberts and Donaldson 60).”

“While the New Testament doctrine of water baptism by immersion solely in the Name of Christ degenerated with the increasing schisms and encroaching apostasy of the early Church, the nascent Catholic communion retained the biblical connection between baptism and the remission of sins. The Roman Creed, which dates from the 3rd century, includes a generic belief in the “remission of sins”, and the 4th century Nicene Creed says: “I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.” Though most Protestants eschew the idea of spiritual regeneration in the baptismal ceremony, the scriptural view espoused by modern Oneness Pentecostals is greatly supported both by the primary text of God’s Word and the most ancient bishops and apologists for the Christian faith. Baptism is an indisputable element of the New Birth; and by faith in the redemptive work of the blood of Jesus Christ; our sins are truly washed away in the fountain of His forgiveness.”


"Go ye, and make disciples of all nations in my name''

Matthew 28:19 as Quoted by Eusebius Pamphili (~260 - 340 A.D.)

[Quotation found in his “Oration in praise of the Emperor Constantine,” Chapter XVI, (335 A.D.), in “The Church History of Eusebius”, Book III, Chapter V (324 A.D.). in his Demonstratio Evangelica Book III, Chapter 6 (318 A.D.), in his Theophania, etc. (contexts in Appendix 1).

From earlier manuscripts, Eusebius Pamphilus quoted Matthew 28:19 in his writings without any trinitarian formula (to see other studies done by renown scholars).

Genuine ancient manuscripts did read in Mt. 28:19 as follows (see the original consistency in the use of the first person as underlined):

“Mt. 28:18: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Mt. 28:19: Go ye, and make disciples of all nations in my name:

Mt. 28:20: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

And not as we have it altered now in all the latter Bible versions:

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.

That altered commandment, as we have it printed now, was never fulfilled by any of the Apostles, because it was not the original order given to them by Jesus Christ. We can easily see it, if we read by ourselves the book of Acts (and/or all books of the New Testament). This truth can only be seen by those who have “eyes to see and ears to ear”, not by those which have been already blinded (cauterized) by the traditions of men. The Word of God needs to be our own and our only norm of belief and practice, not doctrines or dogmas made by men, neither men’s religions or writings. If we compare the original and trustworthy Scriptures of the Bible as originally revealed by God, with church history and writings of men, we can see the abyss of difference, and then we can decide if we are going to believe in God’s Word or in men’s opinions (history in Appendix 2, quotations in Appendix 3).

Notoriously, Brian Hoeck reports that more recently, at least two New Testament ancient texts have been found that make no mention of any trinitarian formula in Mt. 28:19:

"Go forth into all the world and teach all the nations in my name in every place." (Matthew 28:19 as cited in: E. Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts, 1915, pp. 58 ff., 628 and 636).


"Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever." (Matthew 28:19, Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, translated by George Howard from Shem Tob's, Evan Bohan).

Ethelbert W. Bullinger states: "…there is one great difficulty with regard to the [trinitarian] words [in Mt. 28:19, as we have them in our versions now]: …that, the Apostles themselves never obeyed this command; and in the rest of the New Testament there is no hint as to it ever having been obeyed by anyone. Baptism * was always in the name of the one person of the Lord Jesus. "It is difficult to suppose that there would have been this universal disregard of so clear a command, if it had ever been given; or [if] it ever really formed part of the primitive text. As to the Greek MSS, there are none beyond the fourth Century [Note: And of the fourth century, there are two: the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus---BOTH CORRUPT. All other known Greek MSS are from 5th Century and

upward], and it seems clear that the Syrian part of the Church knew nothing of these words. It looks… as though the words got into the text (perhaps from the margin) in the Church of North Africa [possibly Alexandria, Alexander’s and Athanasius’ headquarters, see Appendix 3]; and that the Syrian Churches did not have them in the MSS at their disposal" (Word Studies on the HOLY SPIRIT, pp. 47-49).

Fredrick C. Conybeare notes that, “it may be remarked that in the oldest Syriac MS the folio which contained the end of Matthew has disappeared” (Zeitschrift f. d. Neutest. Wiss. Jahrg. II, 1901, p. 275), and that “in the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading [a non-triune reading of Matt 28:19], namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew”… “Eusebius cites this text of Matthew 28:19 again and again in works written between 300-336 AD, namely in his long Commentaries on the Psalms, Commentaries on

Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany, ...


his famous History of the

Church, and in his Panegyric of the Emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form: “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you”… I have collected all these passages in the Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by Dr. Erwin Preuschen in Darmstaft in 1901, except one, which is in a catena published by Mai in a German magazine”.

Conybeare continues: “Eusebius is not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once comments on it in such a way as to show how much he set store by the words “in my name”. It is evident that this ["in My name"] was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors. Of any other form of text [than the "in My name" reading], he had never heard and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice. Then in two controversial works written in his extreme old age, and entitled: 'Against Marcellus of Ancyra,' and the other 'About The Theology Of The Church,' he used the common reading after Nice. The exclusive survival [of the trinitarian text of Matthew 28:19] in all MSS, both Greek and Latin, need not cause surprise. But in any case, the conversion of Eusebius to the longer text after the Council of Nice indicates that it was at that time being introduced as a shibboleth of orthodoxy into all codices. The question of the inclusion of the Holy Spirit on equal terms in the Trinity had been threshed out [at the Council], and a text so invaluable to the dominant party [the Trinitarians] could not but make its way into every codex, irrespective of its textual affinities. It is clear, therefore, that [of all] the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original writing, in which there was no mention either of [both] baptism or of the words 'Father, Son, and Holy Ghost' [in Matthew 28:19]” (Hibbert Journal, 1902).

The Encyclopedia of Religion And Ethics states that Mt 28:19 "is the central piece of evidence for the traditional view [trinitarian formula]. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on the grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism, and historical criticism… The facts are, in summary, that

Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 twenty one times, either omitting everything between 'nations' and 'teaching,' or in the form 'make disciples of all nations in my name,' the latter form being the more frequent… the traditional [trinitarian] text was brought about by the [trinitarian baptismal] influence working on the Eusebian [Gospel of Matthew, which originally stated "in My name"] text”.

Martineau in his “Seat of Authority” Bk. IV, ch. IV, p. 515 writes: “The very account which tells us that at last, after his resurrection, he commissioned his apostles to go and baptize among all nations, 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.” Hoeck asks, “How did these spurious words get into the text and from whence did they come?” Fred Conybeare notes, "In the pages of Clement of Alexandria, a text some what similar to [the nowadays forged] Matthew 28:19 is once cited--but as from a gnostic heretic, named Theodotus, and not as from the canonical text as follows--'And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptise those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit' " (Conybeare quoting from Excerpta cap.76, ed Sylb. p.287). But even this may be a forgery not produced by Theodotus, but by Clement himself, as Dr. P. M. Barnard, who collected the N. T. citations of Clement in a volume of the Cambridge Texts and Studies suggests. For other spurious quotations see Appendix 3.

Regarding baptism*, there is no record in the New Testament that any baptism using a trinitarian command was ever carried out by the Apostles. They always used the name of Jesus Christ, but never any trinitarian formula. The Apostles were obedient to the real order in Matthew 28:19 as originally given by their Lord and Master Jesus Christ, before his ascension to heaven. The following verses show the truth of what the Apostles did:

“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).

“For as yet it was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16).

“And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord *. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days” (Acts 10:48).

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

The word trinity or its formula was not present in the original manuscripts of the Bible. Contrary to that Trinitarian formula, a cross validation even of the words of Jesus Christ at that very moment, sets for us to see, if we want to, the truth of what he really have had said:

“And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his [Jesus'] name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47).

The same Luke gave us the most detailed account of Jesus’ last words before his ascent to heaven in the book of Acts:

“…unto the apostles whom he [Jesus] had chosen [including Jude, the traitor apostle, present still at this moment, later killing himself]… he [Jesus] shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days… being [Jesus] assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with holy spirit not many days hence… ye shall receive power, after that the holy spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up…” (Acts 1:2b-5, 8-9a).

Jesus never declared, “you will be witnesses of the holy trinity”, but rather “ye shall be witnesses unto me”.

By simple scripture build up we can see complementary information given by Mark:

“And he [Jesus] said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized [with holy spirit (Acts 1:5)] shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover [all these are “manifestations of the spirit” within us (1 Cor. Ch. 12 to Ch. 14)]. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen” (Mk 16:15-20).

Jesus never said “in the name of the trinity you will cast demons”, rather “In my name shall they cast out devils [Gk. daimonia]”

The conclusions of all writings of the Apostle John are also significant:

“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (Jn 20:30-31).

“These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life” (1Jn 5:13).

John words are: “these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”. John never said that his writings were written “that we might believe that Jesus is God the Son”, as religion, twisting interpretations of the very same writings of John

and of the rest of the scriptures, desire us to believe, trying to prevent that more people, with all their religious twisting of the truth, could be born again, and have life through Jesus’ name, and to know that we have eternal life. John wrote many comparisons regarding who Christ is, he is: the word (1:1), the water (7:37), the bread (6:35), the light (8:12), the good shepherd (10:11), the door (10:7), the true vine (15:1), etc. Hoverer, religion misunderstood him, and adulterated the gift of holy spirit, transforming it in a third “person” of the trinity, and also transformed Jesus “the man – man’s redeemer”, “the advocate and the mediator of men” into an unreachable God, and substituted the spiritual baptism with the outdated water baptism, which was likened to a pagan religious “initiation”, adding to it the abomination of the heathen mysteries of the trinity, and making its followers to believe that the dead still alive, allowing demons to impersonate “the dead”, as in catholic churches, through religious images, etc… this are only few, among other many tricks, fully supported by God’s adversary, and introduced through philosophies of men, men lacking of holy spirit, men twice dead (deceivers that indeed are going to experience the second death, as Jude verses 12 and 19 clearly manifest).

We have seen that there exists in the Bible the powerful and clear evidence, given by God, against words inserted by men (that’s why wee need to be aware and acquainted with All the Bible and not only with just “one verse”), men whose purpose is to carry out their own theology, as we can read in the last words of Paul, John, Peter and Jude (Appendix 6). Even if under a “sincere principle of unity”, as Constantine desired, we know that “sincerity is no guarantee for truth”. It is our responsibility to read the Bible carefully to see the written truth and not being guided by doctrines designed by men to fulfill their private political agendas (historic example in Appendix 2 and tampering of God’s Word, which ended in thousands of born ag Christians being discriminated and/or martyred (in Appendix 3, decisions made by Theodosius I and by the Theophilus popes).

The Greek Christian Justin Martyr, who wrote in the middle of the second century, never quoted "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," nor did Aphraates (Aphrahat The Persian Sage) in the early fourth century, neither the great theologian Origen, nor Hermas the shepherd. This manifests that Eusebius in his Greek and Latin texts, Justin in his Greek texts, and Aphrahat in his Syriac texts, must have had earlier manuscripts without the added words (Appendix 1).

It was not difficult for Fourth Century scribes after the Nicene order to destroy genuine manuscripts and to retain the forged ones, changing the words "in my name" to "in the name of the Father, the Son, and The Holy Ghost", since the Godhead was gradually taking on a triune nature in their political-religious environment (Appendix 5 shows that as late as in 1520 A. D., catholic hands forged a MS to tamper also 1 John 5:7-8 for Erasmus’s "Textus Receptus", 3rd edition, damning the KJV even more by including it. If this forgery of 1 John 5:7-8 is a well known fact, why we don’t help everybody to see that a similar forgery was done earlier to tamper with Matthew 28:19, and with any other secular writing (at least, that was the evident attempt of the Athanasians, as we can see in the forged Ignatian epistles, in the forgery upon the anonymous Didache and upon many other documents (Appendix 3). Only by the grace of God it was left for us to see the truth in Mt. 28:19 from the original writings of Origen, Eusebius, Justin, Aphrahat, Hermas,

and others still to discover)).

That the forgery of Biblical texts and of other earlier Christian writers was “the norm” with the full authorization of the Popes and of all catholic theologians of that time (and of to-day) can be seen in written words of the forgers themselves, words that have reached us, even in the midst of a strict and heinous “catholic censorship”, see for example Rufinus (who at the conclusion of his version of Origen’s Commentary on Romans boasts that he had taken much “trouble to fill in what was lacking in Origen”), by Jerome (who in his Preface to The Four Gospels of his Vulgate NT wrote, “Is there a man, learned or unlearned, who will …call me a forger and a profane person for having the audacity to add anything to the ancient books… which enable me to bear the odium-in the first place, [is that] the command is given by you [Pope Damasus, A.D. 383]”), by Basil “the Great” of Caesarea (that writes in his Treatise De Spiritu Sancto, Chapter XXVIII “…passages… viewed with suspicion… really have quoted at length…”), and by many others, considered “saints” by the catholic church have been altered… fact of their having been tampered with… Those however which I [Basil] (Appendix 3).

* Additional Note Regarding Water Baptism: Water baptism is no longer necessary, since we now have the true baptism, which is the spiritual baptism in holy spirit, also called, “the receiving of power from on high” (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:8), and “the gift of God” (Acts 2:38), and also, “the promise of our Father” (Acts 1:4). Christ told his disciples:

“Acts 1:5: For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” John the Baptist recognized that this spiritual baptism would be provided by Christ (Mt. 3:11) as did Priscilla and Aquila. Today (as Apollos or as Philip did then), many people still acknowledge the baptism of John (Acts 18:25) as the only bap ism. However, now we need to expound unto them “the way of God more perfectly (Acts 18:26),” in the same way as Paul did, proclaiming the new birth, which is being born again of holy spirit, and not of water submersion or ablutions. Even the Apostle Peter acknowledged this simple truth: “Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 11:16). This greatly upset Cyprian (and others of his kind to-day), because water was no longer needed, neither it has ever been needed any trinitarian formula. Cyprian’s doctrines were just the philosophies of men’s imaginations (Appendix 3). Baptism today is to be born again, receiving holy spirit in the name of Christ Jesus, just as the Apostle Paul taught and performed, no longer using water, but through the spiritual new birth, the receiving of salvation, which is “Christ in us, the hope of the glory” (Col. 1:27).


Other word not present in older texts, and already corrected in almost all recent versions, can be found in:

1 Tim. 3:16 “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: “God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

The word “God” still appears in the KJV and in almost all of its derivatives.

The proper translation should read:

1 Tim. 3:16 “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

Great is the Mystery of godliness, which [Mystery] was manifested in the flesh!

The Revised Version of 1885 gives “He who” in the text, and is rightly stated in the margin, “The word God, in place of He who, rests on no sufficient ancient evidence”.

Some ancient authorities read “which”. This is our belief. We believe that the original word was ho (0), “which”, in the neuter form, to agree with the word musterion, which is also neuter. Then, a scribe who, not understanding why it was in neuter, added an “S,” thus turning ho into hos (0?), which made it masculine, “who”, or “He who”, though with that change is thus made more obscure. Finally, some later scribe put a little mark in the “0,” thus making it into Th (?), and making the two letters ThS (??), an abbreviation of the word Theos (?e??), God (The “Englishman’s Greek New Testament” of Thomas Newberry (1877), and its revised form done by George Ricker Berry (1897) even expand the abbreviation to make it be as ?e?? without the support of the evidence of all manuscripts, even when they quote in a footnote: “0? , “who”, appears in Griesbach 1805, Lachmann 1842-50, Tischendorf 8th ed. 1865-72, Tregelles 1857-72, Alford 1862- 71, and Wordsworth 1870”). A microscope reveals the fact that the little mark in the “0” in the Alexandrine MS (Codex A in the British Museum) is in different ink, and was evidently added by a later hand. This, we believe to be the corruption of the reading, and that originally it was simply “0,” which. The old Syriac and all the Older Latin Versions agree with this translation (The Companion Bible, 1922, London, p. 1803). “The Codex Claromontanus, Uncial 061, the Vulgate and Older Latin Manuscripts contain ho (0) rather than hos (0?)”. D and virtually the entire Latin tradition read the neuter relative pronoun 0, “which”. That the 0?, ??, ?e?? reading did not arise until after the 2nd century is evident from the Western reading 0. B. M. Metzger notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century supports ?e??; no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading ?e??” (Textual Commentary, 574).

1 Tim. 3:16 is generally taken of Christ personal, but if read of the Body of Christ, which is his Church, then, in the six sentences of 1 Tim. 3:16 we have the whole truth concerning the Body of Christ that is now revealed on earth. The place occupied by the Revelation of the Mystery in 1 Tim. 3:16 (the “Mystery of Godliness”) will be best understood by the important position it occupies in contrast with the “Mystery of Iniquity” (1 Tim 4:1-12), as discussed in the link referred (Ethelbert W. Bullinger, The Mystery, Things to Come, part IV, Dec. 1895, 2(6):102-105).

[The Greek word “0 ”is translated correctly as the word “which” in the Latin Vulgate, in

the James Murdock Translation of the Syriac Peshitta and in the Douay-Rheims; is translated as “that” in the French 1910 Louis Segond, and as “it” is (and the word “is” in present tense) in the 1933 Lamsa Translation from the Peshitta; the changed “0?” has been translated to “He who” in the Westcott-Hort Greek Critical Text, in the 1901 American Standard Version, in the New American Standard Bible, in J. B. Rotherham, in the 1949 Bible in Basic English, in The Living Oracles; “0?” as “He” in the NET Bible, in the International Standard Version, in the Revised Standard Version, in the Revised King James Version, in the New International Version, in the Common Edition, in the Twentieth Century, in The Message, in Good News, in God’s Word, in the Portuguese Joao Ferreira de Almeida, in the Spanish Reina Valera Actualizada and LBLA; “0?” as “who” in the Emphatic Diaglott, in the Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha, as “that” (Christ) in the 1912 Weymouth translation, as “Christ” in the Contemporary English Version, in the New Living Translation, etc. None of these translations includes here the word “God”.]

On reading faithfully your Bible you can easily see that the “central mystery of the Christian faith”, is in reality the Mystery, and not “the trinity”. The Mystery revealed by God to us, the members of the body of Christ, is that when we confess Jesus Christ as our Lord, and when we believe that God raised him from the dead, then we are saved, then is Christ in us the hope of glory, then we have holy spirit within, and both Jews and Gentiles are fellow-heirs and members of the same Body of Christ, which is his Church.

The expression “God the Son” is never to be found in the Bible, nor the catholic creed expression “true God of true God”, neither “God incarnated”. However, the expression “Son of God” regarding Jesus Christ is found at least 68 times. God and Jesus Christ are one in purpose, and they want us to be one with them also:

John 17:20-23:

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 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”

Here the word “one” in Greek is “hen”, which is neuter, not a person, not masculine, and it is the same word “hen” translated also “one” in John 10:30, when Jesus said “I and my Father are one”, and by its context, being “one” is to be one in purpose and in will, Christ with God and we with them.

Jesus Christ stated that: “my Father is greater than I” (Jn. 14:28, 10:29). The Bible also states that “the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3), and that “when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28). Why don’t believe in the Bible only?

Remember that the key of our salvation is given in Rom. 10:9: “That if you shall confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you shall be saved” (Revised King James Version). It does not say, “That if you shall confess with your mouth that Jesus is God”.

In the book of Acts we can see time after time the same confession, that: “Jesus Christ is Lord”, as in the first preaching of Peter on the day of Pentecost: “Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ,” and in his first preaching to the gentiles: “The word which God sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:).” Other examples can be found in Acts 4:33, 7:59, 8:16, 9:17,27,29, 11:17,20, 15:11,16, 16:31, 19:10,17, 20:21,24,35, 21:13, 28:31, and also in Acts 2:38, 3:6, 4:18, 5:40, 16:18, 1 Cor. 1:2, Philip. 2:9-11, etc. As stated before, you will never find the word trinity or any of the trinitarian formulas in the book of Acts or in any other book of the revealed Bible.

The testimony of God himself, when referring to Jesus is: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mt. 3:17, Mk. 1:11, Lk. 1:22 and 9:35), are we going to believe God Himself on this? The testimony of Jesus Christ, regarding who he is: “Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” (Jn. 10:36), are we going to believe Jesus Christ’s testimony of who he is, as it was given by himself? On his testimony Jesus was confirming what his father had already expressed regarding who Jesus is. The testimony of John the Apostle, on giving the purpose of all his writings is: “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name” (Jn. 20:30-31, 1 Jn. 5:13). John the Apostle is giving at the end of his book this beautiful summary, to don’t let anybody in any doubt or misunderstanding about the truth contained within everything that he wrote. God himself, and Jesus Christ, and John, and Peter, who by revelation had said: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt. 16:16), and the rest of the pure Biblical Scriptures, I ask, are all of them “blaspheming” because none of them says what the catholic religion says (Appendix 3), or what the Koran says (Appendix 4)? Jude Iscariot was one of the original Apostles and he betrayed Jesus Christ, Thomas Didymus was another, and he did not believed in the Word of God, until seeing. What about ourselves?


Another scripture deliberately changed, and corrected to its original form by almost all recent versions and translations, as it contains the only second “trinitarian formula” that was added by pro-Nicene hands, is:

  • 1 John 5:7-8:

  • 7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy

Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit,

and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

These verses still appear in the KJV and in almost all of its derivatives.

KJV verses 7 and 8 contain words that do not appear in any of the early manuscripts. The words added begin in verse 7 with "in heaven" and goes unto "in earth" in verse 8. These words are found in only four Greek manuscripts before the sixteenth century, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension (alteration) of the Latin Vulgate (Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary to the Greek New Testament, N.Y.: United Bible Societies, 1971, pp. 716-717). They were first seen in the margin of some Latin copies, and from there they have crept into the text (The Companion Bible, 1922, London, p. 1876).

The earlier texts read as follows:

1 John 5:7-8:

“For there are three that bear record, _ the spirit, the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

_ represents that none of the added words were originally present there.

[Added words never included in: 1881 Westcott and Hort, 1889 Darby Bible, German Luther Bible (Appendix 5, version available in the e-Sword Free Software), 1901 American Standard Version, 1912 Weymouth, 1949 Bible in Basic English, New American Standard Bible, The Common Edition, The Emphatic Diaglott, Majority Text, Living Oracles, Montgomery, New International Version, Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha, Rotherham Emphasized Bible, Revised Standard Version, Revised King James New Testament, Twentieth Century, NET Bible, World English Bible, “Reina-Valera Actualizada,” this verse even is accurate in The Vulgate, etc.]

“Including more words was an attempt of a scribe or scribes to corrupt the original text with the theology propounded by Tertullian (early third century, the first person to use the word trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, devoting a treatise to it), Cyprian (third century), Athanasius (fourth century, the main influencer in the Nicene trinity), Hieronymus (Jerome, translator of The Vulgate, fifth century), Augustine (fifth century),” etc. (their writings, Appendix 3).

These practices “for the forgiveness of sins”, or as the later form took over, when baptizing even babies, “as a signature of pertaining to “the right” church”, using water “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost”, replaced the original commandment given: to provide salvation and holy spirit to everyone who believes “in the name of Jesus Christ”.

The insertion within 1 John 5:7-8 was omitted completely by the English committee in the Revised Version of 1881-1885, and by the American committee in the American

Standard Version of 1901. Yet both, the American and the British Bible Societies, knowing that the ancient texts and manuscripts do not substantiate the insertion, have continued to insert the error in the newer versions of the King James Version (KJV) as genuine Scripture. To print these verses for many years after it was known not to be true, is an immoral act with Scripture, and as such, it is sin. The mystery of the trinity is within the creeds of men, not in the Word of God. Why not just simply believe the truth of God’s Word? “Religious men” wants us to worship their own human thoughts consecrated as dogmas and not the true God! However, the seekers after the truth will sooner or later discover all the mistranslations, as well as all the forgeries on which the doctrine of the trinity has been based. Thinking people will not continue following leaders in whose honesty they have no confidence, those leaders who defile the Word of God and defile themselves. To say that Jesus Christ is God the Son is idolatry. To say: “Jesus Christ is the Son of God”, is truth.

The student is not told that the dogma of the trinity unified the roman church by persecution, it is concealed from him that Theodosius “the Great” (see Appendix 3 to read his statement and of his sanguinary character), in the latter part of the fourth century made, by force, the trinity to be the official doctrine of the Roman Empire; and at that time, there were not enough Trinitarians in the capital city of Constantinople on the first Sunday thereafter, to place, not even to one single trinitarian worshipper in each church building in the city. God’s revelation to men opens with God creating, and closes when “the Son, also himself being subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28) [in Appendix 5 details on the history of the catholic insertion of trinitary words in 1 Jn. 5:7-8, words deceivingly retained today by “religious men”].

The Bible says, regarding those early (and of today) theologians, which with their personal aspirations took over the control of the “church” since its early days:

“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears” (Acts 20:29-31).

“This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain” (2 Tim. 1:15-16).

Etc… (more references can be found in Appendix 6).

By the end of the first century, the only apostolic procession was by these grievous wolves. In our search for truth, we must trust in the Scriptures themselves and not in the “church tradition” laid by grievous wolves in sheep’s clothing (Bill Powell, 1998, on his Online review of “The Names and Order of the Books of the Old Testament”, originally written by E. W. Bullinger in Things to Come in 1894, 1(6):110).

If Jesus Christ himself, or if his Apostles did not established an “official religious institution”, nor “official creed”, nor “dogmas”, nor “doctrines”, who are we to establish our own creeds, dogmas and doctrines? Or even worse, who are we to oppress and to obligate others to submit to us and to our own vain imaginations, through such creeds and dogmas? Notoriously, they are proven to be wrong when compared with the pure fountain of the living Word.

Enough is to “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15).

This is the testimony of the Word of God regarding the invalidity of any kind of doctrines or dogmas, either from the law period or of any other of men’s imaginations in this age of grace, in this administration of the mystery revealed by God to us in his Word:

“Having abolished [Jesus Christ] in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances (dogmas); for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace” (Eph. 2:15).

“Blotting out [Jesus Christ] the handwriting of ordinances (dogmas) that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (Col. 2:14).

“Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances (dogmatidzo)? …” (Col. 2:20).

We are living today the Mystery revealed by God, the age of the grace of God!

Regarding doctrines not to be found in the original revelation of the Bible:

“He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying

aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men

ye reject the

... commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition” (Mk. 7:6-9).

“Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein” (Heb. 13:9).

“Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using; after the commandments and doctrines of men?” (Col. 2:21-22).

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils” (1Tim. 4:1).

God reminds us not to alter the Holy Scriptures. Therefore, all individuals or groups that have done so (willingly) are accursed (damn, reproved) according to God:

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen” (Rev. 22:18-21).

“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2).

“What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it” (Deut. 12:32).

“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar” (Prov. 30:5-6).










A Collection of Evidence, A. Ploughman and Randall Duane Hughes.

Biblical Unitarian.

Early writings, mainly “Ante-Nicene” (before the time of the trinitarian dogma), quoting accurately Matthew 28:19 and its immediate context (in bold the scripture and in italics its related meaning, as the writers understood it):


“…the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name."

Eusebius Pamphilus, “The Church History of Eusebius”, Book III, Chapter V, “The Last Siege of the Jews after Christ”.

[Eusebius Pamphilus was a disciple of Ammonius, Origen and of Pamphilus (see below in Jerome’s own words), so we can track and see that neither Origen had in his Bible versions those altered words in Matthew 28:19, and as we will see below, not even in his Commentary on Matthew]


“What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator, or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Saviour has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, "Go ye, and make disciples of all nations in my name.'' He it was who gave the distinct assurance, that his gospel must be preached in all the world for a testimony to all nations…”

Eusebius Pamphilus, “Oration in praise of the Emperor Constantine,” Chapter XVI.

[The comment of Schaff and Wace here is: “There is an interesting various reading here, where Eusebius, with B as against Aleph, adds something; but where B and others have “oun”, and D, and others have “nun”, Eusebius has “goun” “ (at the beginning, after the word Go, translated here by a comma (,). These first two can be found in the full documents Online at: (Look inside that site for the book:: NPNF2-01)]


“With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you," and He joined the effect to His Word”

Eusebius Pamphilus, Demonstratio Evangelica, Book III, Chapter VI. “Against Those

who think that the Christ of God was a Sorcerer”.

“See how truly He speaks with the voice of God, saying in these very words to those disciples of His, the poorest of the poor: "Go forth, and make disciples of all the nations." "But how," the disciples might reasonably have answered the Master, "can we do it?… "By what power shall we ever survive our daring attempt?"… But while the disciples of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph "In MY NAME." For He did not bid them simply and indefinitely make disciples of all nations, but with the necessary addition of "In my Name." And the power of His Name being so great, that the apostle says: "God has given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth," He shewed the virtue of the power in His Name concealed from the crowd when He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in my Name." ”

“I am irresistibly forced to retrace my steps, and search for their cause, and to confess that they could only have succeeded in their daring venture, by a power more divine, and more strong than man's, and by the co-operation of Him Who said to them: "Make disciples of all the nations in my Name." And when He said this He appended a promise, that would ensure their courage and readiness to devote themselves to carrying out His commands. For He said to them: "And lo! I am with you all the days, even unto the end of the world." ”

Eusebius Pamphilus, Demonstratio Evangelica, Book III, Chapter VII. “Oracles About Christ”. [Online at:]

“And He bids His own disciples after their rejection, "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.'' So, then, we that are the Gentiles know and receive the prophet that was foretold”

Eusebius Pamphilus, Demonstratio Evangelica, Book IX, Chapter XI. “From Deuteronomy. Of the Lawgiving according to the Gospel of Christ. [Passage quoted, Deut. 18:15-19.] ”. [Online at:]

Theophania, Book III, 4.

“He (the Saviour) said in one word and enouncement to His Disciples, "Go and make disciples of all nations in my name, and teach ye them every thing that I have commanded you." And the deed He made to follow the word. For thence, every race of ///////////

“Who, of those that ever existed, is the mortal man, King, Philosopher, Lawgiver, or Prophet, whether Greek or Barbarian, who bore all this pre-eminence,--not after his death, but while he was still alive, and drew breath;-- and could effect so much, that he

should be preached throughout the whole earth? and, that his name should fill the hearing, and tongues of every people upon the face of the whole earth ? But this, no man has done excepting our Saviour alone, who said to his disciples by word, and fulfilled it by deed: " Go and teach all nations." He said (also) to them,--what He had foretold and previously revealed,--that it was necessary His Gospel should be preached throughout the whole creation, for a testimony to all nations. And, with the word, He brought the deed also to pass: for, immediately,--and not at a great distance of time,--the whole creation was filled with His words!”

Eusebius Pamphilus, the Greeks and Barbarians became at once, and in a short space of time, (His) Disciples: The laws too of our Saviour were not written in any Book of His; but, without book, were disseminated at His command among all nations”

Eusebius Pamphilus, Theophania, Book V, 17.

[The note on Mt 28:19-20 given by the Editor D. D. Samuel Lee in 1843 is that it was “Cited evidently from memory”. In his next note, regarding Eusebius’ expression “without book”, Lee says: “Let it not be imagined that this favours the modern doctrines about unwritten tradition. The Apostles were,--be it remembered,-- divinely inspired expressly for this work, and for inditing those Scriptures which are the main sources of divine truth to the Christian Church. And, although Irenaeus (Lib. ii. cap. ii. p. 200. Edit. Grabe) speaks of Tradition not written, but delivered viva voce; it is evident enough, that he intends to ascribe to this no independent authority: for in the very same context he informs us, that the Heretics, against whom he was writing, were found, when opposing this Tradition, resisting the declarations also of the Scriptures. Ancient Tradition, when found accordant with the Scriptures, may indeed be relied on; but, it is from an examination of it by the Scriptures alone, that we can know it to be good”.]

“What power have we upon which to trust, that we shall succeed in this enterprise? These things therefore, the Disciples of our Saviour would either have thought, or said. But He who was their Lord solved, by one additional word, the aggregate of the things of which they doubted, (and) pledged them by saying, '' Ye shall conquer in my name." For it was not that He commanded them, simply and indiscriminately, to go and make Disciples of all nations; but with this excellent addition which He delivered, (viz): "In my name." Since it was by the power of His name that all this came to pass; as the Apostle has said, "God has given Him a name, which is superior to every name: that, at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow which is in heaven, and which is in earth, and which is beneath the earth." It is likely therefore, that He would shew forth the excellency of the unseen power, which was hidden from the many, by His name; and, (accordingly) He made the addition, "In my name." He thus accurately foretold moreover, something which should come to pass, (when) He said, "It is expedient that this my Gospel be preached in the whole world, for the testimony of all nations”

Eusebius Pamphilus, Theophania, Book V, 46.

“I am again compelled to recur to the question of (its) cause, and to confess, that they (the

Disciples) could not otherwise have undertaken this enterprise, than by a Divine power which exceeds that of man, and by the assistance of Him who said to them, "Go, and make Disciples of all nations in my name." And, when He had said this to them, He attached to it the promise, by which they should be so encouraged, as readily to give themselves up to the things commanded. For He said to them, "Behold I am with you always, even to the end of the world."”

Eusebius Pamphilus, Theophania, Book V, 49.

[Conybeare says, “Eusebius, the great Ecclesiastical historian, died in 340 A.D., and his work belonged, therefore, in part to the third century. Moreover, he lived in one of the greatest Christian Libraries of that day. If the Greek MSS there contained these words ["baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"], it seems impossible that he could have quoted this verse eighteen times without including them” (Hibbert Journal, Frederick C. Conybeare, 1902)




words recorded in Matthew as spoken by Christ when risen from the dead to His

Origen's Commentary On The Gospel Of John: Tenth Book, 7. Why His Brothers Are Not Called To The Wedding; And Why He Abides At Capernaum Not Many Days.

"…"Lo, I am with you"… justice yet be done to the "I." He who is with His disciples who

are sent out to teach all the nations, until the consummation



Origen's Commentary On The Gospel Of John: Tenth Book, 8. How Christ Abides With Believers To The End Of The Age, And Whether He Abides With Them After That Consummation.


“…And the Apostles on this account left Israel and did that which had been enjoined on them by the Saviour, "Make disciples of all the nations," and, "Ye shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and ill all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”

Origen’s Commentary On Matthew: Book X. 18. Prophets In Their Country.




long, then, as we have Jesus with us fulfilling the promise which runs, "Lo, I am

with you always unto the consummation of the age," we cannot fast nor be in want of

food, so that, because of want of it we should desire to take and eat the forbidden leaven " ...

Origen’s Commentary On Matthew: Book XII, 6. The Meaning Of Leaven. Jesus' Knowledge Of The Heart.

[According to Eusebius (H. E. vi. 36) the Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew were written about the same time as the Contra Celsum, when Origen was over sixty years of age, and may therefore be probably assigned to the period 246-248. Of the twenty-five books into which the work was divided, the first nine, with the exception of two fragments, are lost; books x.-xvii, covering the portion from Mt. 13:36 to 22:33, are extant in the Greek, and the greater part of the remaining books survives in a Latin version, which is co-extensive with the Greek from book xii. 9 to book xvii. 36, and contains further, the exposition from Mt. 22:34 to 27:66. In Eusebius days, earlier MSS and Origen’s volumes on Matthew were at his hands, as we will read. “The Hibbert Journal notes that Origen quotes Matt.28:19 three times---ending the quote abruptly at "nations" each time and "that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, 'In my Name,' struck out." (Conybeare)”]


"And Jesus Himself, in raising the minds of His disciples to higher thoughts of the Son of God, says: "Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of you." And of the same nature is His promise to His disciples: "Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world." "

Origen against Celsus, Book II, Chap. IX

“…for the apostles of Jesus to accomplish the task enjoined upon them by their Master, when He said, "Go and teach all nations."

Origen against Celsus, Book II, Chap. XXX.

“Jesus, however, performed all that He promised to do, and by which He conferred benefits upon his adherents. And we, continually seeing fulfilled all that was predicted by Him before it happened, viz., that this Gospel of His should be preached throughout the whole world, and that His disciples should go among all nations and announce His doctrine; and, moreover, that they should be brought before governors and kings on no other account than because of His teaching; we are lost in wonder at Him, and have our faith in Him daily confirmed.”

Origen against Celsus, Book II, Chap. XLII.


1… “that they might gather together out of every race and every nation a multitude of

devout believers in Himself.”

Origen De Principiis -- Book II. Chap. VI.--On The Incarnation Of Christ.

[Origen was an “early trinitarian”. In Rufinus’ Latin version of De Principiis, the only version that we have now, it is mentioned the word trinity at least 19 times, but not even once is there a mention of Mt. 28:19 as a proof for such trinity, nor in the section called “Summary (Of Doctrine) Regarding The Father, The Son, And The Holy Spirit, And The Other Topics Discussed In The Preceding Pages.” By the other side, all the times that he mentions “to teach every nation”, in relation to the last words of Christ before his ascension, he quotes them as in the need to be done in the name of Jesus Christ (“in Him”), but never in his writings mentions any trinitarian formula associated with Matthew. Origen’s work was harshly persecuted by the Theophilus popes, as you will see below (enough strange is to notice that only in “De Principiis” is the most notable “push” for the doctrines of the trinity within “Origen’s writings”. On reading Rufinus’ and Jerome’s letters, we can see that there was a later hand adding such trinitarian thoughts in the gospel of Matthew and in the book of Origen. That claim can also be substantiated by two of the main doctrinal points of rejection emphasized by the Alexander and the Theophilos popes against Origen, and by the anathemas against Origen’s writings in the Second Council of Constantinople (553 A. D.), as we will see below, tampered on by catholic censorship. Harnack acknowledges the participation of later hands on “retouching” older writings (see end of Appendix 3); but a faithful and a careful comparison of history and of documents, will help us to track back the truth, having the full Bible, not just the forged pieces, but rather, having the Biblical full contexts, its narrative on its historical developments, as described in the book of Acts, and all cumulative scriptures dealing with a similar subject, as our guide. It is the Bible our foremost foundation, together with the comparison of its ancient texts…)]

[Fred. C. Conybeare wrote: “If we could trust Rufinus’ versions of Origen’s homilies, we would have to admit that he used the Textus Receptus at Mt 28:19 and even set store by it. But we cannot trust them. At the conclusion of his version of the commentary on Romans Rufinus boasts that he had taken much “trouble to fill in what was lacking in Origen” (see below rest of Rufinus’ in Latin). The text Mt 28:19 comes thrice in Rufinus’ version of the “Commentar in Romanos”, in V, 2 and 8; and VIII, 4. The last two passages smack of Rufinus rather than of Origen. No sane critic would undertake to say

where Origen ends and Rufinus begins

it is only in Rufinus’ work that the text Mt 28:19

... occurs” (Zeitschrift f. d. Neutest. Wiss. Jahrg. II, 1901, p. 285). To see a detailed account

on other forgery on the works of Origen, go to the end of our Quotations]


“For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God; and we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die

confessing Christ” (Chap. XXXIX, Direct Predictions By The Spirit).



Jesus Christ, being crucified and dead, rose again, and having ascended to heaven,

... reigned; and by those things which were published in His name among all nations by the

apostles, there is joy afforded to those who expect the immortality promised by Him" (Chap. XLII.--Prophecy Using The Past Tense).

Justin Martyr: The First Apology Of Justin.


“God hath not yet afflicted nor inflicts the judgment, as knowing of some that still even today are being made disciples in the name of his Christ, and are abandoning the path of error, who also do receive gifts each as they be worthy, being illuminated by the name of this Christ.”

The same quotation in another version:

“God did not inflict His anger on account of those seven thousand men ['I have still seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal', God answered to Elijah], even so He has now neither yet inflicted judgment, nor does inflict it, knowing that daily some [of you] are becoming disciples in the name of Christ, and quitting the path of error; who are also receiving gifts, each as he is worthy, illumined through the name of this Christ.” (Chap. 39, p 258. (first paragraph) [Justin Describes His Studies In Philosophy (Chap. II) And Other Articles])

Other quotations:

“We, who through the name of Jesus have believed as one man in God the Maker of all, have been stripped, through the name of His first-begotten Son, of the filthy garments, i.e., of our sins; and being vehemently inflamed by the word of His calling, we are the true high priestly race of God, as even God Himself bears witness, saying that in every place among the Gentiles sacrifices are presented to Him well-pleasing and pure” (Chapter CXVI. It Is Shown How This Prophecy Suits The Christians).

“And that expression, 'binding his foal to the vine, and the ass's foal to the vine tendril,' (Gen. 49:11) was a declaring beforehand both of the works wrought by Him at His first advent, and also of that belief in Him which the nations would repose. For they were like an unharnessed foal, which was not bearing a yoke on its neck, until this Christ came, and sent His disciples to instruct them… For after His crucifixion, the disciples that accompanied Him were dispersed, until He rose from the dead, and persuaded them that so it had been prophesied concerning Him, that He would suffer; and being thus persuaded, they went into all the world, and taught these truths. Hence also we are strong in His faith and doctrine, since we have [this our] persuasion both from the prophets, and from those who throughout the world are seen to be worshippers of God in the name of that crucified one” (Chap. LIII - Jacob Predicted That Christ Would Ride On An Ass, And

Zechariah Confirms It (p. 272))

“Every demon, when exorcised in the name of this very Son of God--who is the First- born of every creature, who became man by the Virgin, who suffered, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate by your nation, who died, who rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven--is overcome and subdued” (Chap. LXXXV - He Proves That Christ Is The Lord Of Hosts From Ps. XXIV, And From His Authority Over Demons)

Justin Martyr: Dialogue with Trypho (Dialogue of Justin Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew)

[The last two taken from the book “Justin: It Is Proved That This Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled And Other Articles”. Nowhere is to be found the word trinity or its formula in these writings, even within the growing tide of the imaginations of men surrounding the pure biblical scriptures. “This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the traditional [trinitarian] text of Matthew 28:19” (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics). These are only some examples, but we most notice that neither Clement of Alexandria quotes Mt. 28:19 in his own works “as preserved to us”]


“…Thus also the true Stone, our Lord Jesus Christ is the foundation of all faith. And on Him, on (this) Stone faith is based. And resting on faith all the structure rises until it is completed. For it is the foundation that is the beginning of all the building. For when anyone is brought nigh unto faith, it is laid for him upon the Stone, that is our Lord Jesus Christ…And in that I have called Christ the Stone, I have not spoken my own thought, but the Prophets beforehand called Him the Stone…And again Daniel also spoke concerning this stone which is Christ. For he said: 'The stone was cut out from the mountain, not by hands, and it smote the image, and the whole earth was filled with it.' This he showed beforehand with regard to Christ that the whole earth shall be filled with Him. For lo! by the faith of Christ are all the ends of the earth filled, as David said: 'The sound of the Gospel of Christ has gone forth into all the earth.' And again when He sent forth His apostles He spake thus to them: 'Go forth, make disciples of all nations and they will believe on Me.' And again the Prophet Zechariah also prophesied about the stone which is Christ. For he said: 'I saw a chief stone of equality and of love.'…And again the Apostle has commented for us upon this building and upon the foundation; for he said thus: 'No man can lay another foundation than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.' ” ...

Aphraates, Aphrahat The Persian Sage, Demonstrations, Demonstration I.--Of Faith (8)

[In: Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Vol

XIII, Aphrahat, Select Demonstrations (Demonstration I.2-6, 8 ,13,19). Aphraates


... between 337 and 345. The words 'Make disciples of all nations, and they shall believe in me' appear to be a gloss of the Eusebian reading 'in my name.' But in any case, they preclude the Textus Receptus with its injunction to baptize in the triune name. Were the

writing of Aphraates an isolated fact, we might regard it as a loose citation, but in the presence of the Eusebian and Justinian texts, this is impossible" (Conybeare)]


"The anonymous author of De Rebaptismate in the third century power in the name of Jesus invoked upon a man in baptism' "


dwells at length on 'the

[Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. i, p 352, quoting De Rebaptismate 6.7]


Chap. XVII.

“Because, he [Hermas’ interlocutor] said, "all the nations that dwell under heaven were called by hearing and believing upon the name of the Son of God" ”

Chap. XIV.

“The name of the Son of God is great, and cannot be contained, and supports the whole world. If, then, the whole creation is supported by the Son of God, what think ye of those who are called by Him, and bear the name of the Son of God, and walk in His commandments? do you see what kind of persons He supports? Those who bear His name with their whole heart. He Himself, accordingly, became a foundation to them, and supports them with joy, because they are not ashamed to bear His name”

Chap. XVI.

“Before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life… these apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God”.

The Pastor: Book Third – Similitudes, Similitude Ninth. The Great Mysteries In The Building Of The Militant And Triumphant Church

[There is another translation of the same book called The Shepherd Of Hermas, Translated by J.B. Lightfoot. Nowhere in the context of the book III is to be found the word trinity or the Trinitarian formula, even within all other doctrinal deviations and imaginations of Hermas]


“…the apostles and teachers, who had preached the name of the Son of God…”

THE STROMATA, OR MISCELLANIES: Book II, Chap. IX.--The Connection Of The Christian Virtues.

[notice the high similarity of this “Stromata” quotation with the last quote of Hermas]


Matthew 28:19 is still quoted accurately even immediately after the Council of Nicaea (Nicoea, Nicea, (now Iznik, Turkey), a city of ancient Bithynia, in Asia Minor), and even if quoted by Trinitarians. In the next writings it is still not quoted in its “trinitarian formula”, even within such trinitarian disputations. Matthew 28:19 is not used as a “trinitarian proof” because it was not there at that time! So, historical evidence shows that the trinitarian adulteration was:


Four Discourses Against The Arians (Written Between 356 And 360 by Athanasius, see in Appendix 3 details of his character), Discourse IV: 26 - 36.

That the Son is the Co-existing Word, argued from the New Testament. Texts from the Old Testament continued; especially Ps. cx. 3. Besides, the Word in Old Testament may be Son in New, as Spirit in Old Testament is Paraclete in New. Objection from Acts x. 36; answered by parallels, such as 1 Cor. i. 5. Lev. ix. 7. &c. Necessity of the Word's taking flesh, viz. to sanctify, yet without destroying, the flesh.

“32. For in the same way that John here preaches that incomprehensible union. 'the mortal being swallowed up of life,' nay, of Him who is Very Life (as the Lord said to Martha, 'I am the Life'), so when the blessed Peter says that through Jesus Christ the Word was sent, he implies the divine union also. For as when a man heard 'The Word became flesh,' he would not think that the Word ceased to be, which is absurd, as has been said before, so also hearing of the Word which has been united to the flesh, let him understand the divine mystery one and simple. More clearly however and indisputably than all reasoning does what was said by the Archangel to the Bearer of God herself, shew the oneness of the Divine Word and Man. For he says, 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.' Irrationally then do the followers of the Samosatene separate the Word who is clearly declared to be made one with the Man from Mary. He is not therefore sent through that Man; but He rather in Him sent, saying, 'Go ye, teach all nations.' ”


“…whoever of us preach the name of the Lord in divers lands in their stead, for he said to them, "Go, teach all nations." You, dear brethren, should observe that we have received a general command: for he wills that all of us should perform that office, which he Titus entrusted in common to all the Apostles. We must needs follow our predecessors. Let us all, then, undertake their labours, since we are the successors in their honour. And we shew forth our diligence in preaching the same doctrines that they taught, beside which,

according to the admonition of the Apostle, we are forbidden to add aught. For the office of keeping what is committed to our trust is no less dignified than that of handing it down.”

The Letter Of Pope Celestine To The Synod Of Ephesus. The Third Ecumenical Council--The Council Of Ephesus, A.D. 431, Emperors.--Theodosius II. And Valentinian III. Pope.--Celestine I.

[Extracts From The Acts. Session II.], (Labbe And Cossart, Concilia, Tom. III., Col. 613. Also Migne, Pat. Lat., Tom. L, Col. 505.(1))


Some “tracks” for the original truth can also be followed on reading early history:

“We believe in one almighty God and Father… and his Son Jesus Christ the Lord, our Saviour… there is no uncertainty about the Father being greater: it cannot be doubted by anyone that the Father is greater in honor, in dignity, in glory, in majesty, in the very name of “Father,” for he [Jesus Christ] himself witnesses… [that “He who sent me is greater than I”]” We outlaw the use of the terms homoousios (identity of essence, the same essence or substance, consubstantial, a doctrine formulated by Athanasius; in the Spanish catholic creed this lie appears as “consustancial” or “consubstancial” al Padre) and homoiousios (similarity of essence) to describe the Father’s relationship to the Son, because the concept of “essence” “is not included in the Divine Scriptures, and it is beyond man’s knowledge… and holy spirit “is through the Son” rather than being coequal with God”.

The Second Sirmian Creed, approved in Sirmium (357 A.D.)

[The Second Sirmian Creed was a trumpet which was heard from one end of the empire to the other”. However, “the Latin bishops were clearly resentful of their Greek colleagues’ tendency to treat them like uncultured” [as the Latin bishops really were]. References: Hanson, R.P.C., The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 A.D., 1988, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, pp. 344-345. Rubenstein have replaced Hanson’s “declare” with the clearer term, “explain”. Note that the issue of the Father’s and Son’s birth-relationship is “genetic” (from the Greek gennetos) but not [necessarily] in the materialistic sense (see Bible references in Appendix 4); H. M. Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, 2nd ed., 1900, Cambridge University Press, p. 162; and R. E. Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, 1999, Harcourt, pp. 186-191, 253]


“Since the term essence (ousia) was adopted by the fathers [at Nicaea] without proper reflection [or “naively”] and, not being known by the people, causes offense because the Scriptures do not contain it; it has been resolved that it should be removed and that in future there should be no mention whatever of essence in regard to God, since the Divine

Scriptures nowhere refer to essence [when speaking] about Father and Son…”

The Dated Creed, confirmed at Rimini-Seleucia, 359 A.D.

[at Seleucia (in Asia Minor) and at Rimini (on Italy’s Adriatic coast)], and at Constantinople, 360 A.D. The “Dated Creed” is so called because the committee of bishops took the unusual step of dating it: May 22, 359. The translation is found in Barnes T.D., Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire, 1993, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, p. 144. “Naively” is Hanson’s version (Search, 364) of Barnes’s “without proper reflection”; R. E. Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, 1999, Harcourt, pp. 75, 189, 253.]

[This was a more representative Council of the entire church than the Council of Nicaea, as was attended by more than 500 bishops from both East and West. If any meeting deserves the title “ecumenical,” that one seems to qualify; but its result – the adoption of an Arian creed – was later repudiated by the Catholic Church. Councils whose products were later deemed unorthodox not only lost the “ecumenical” label but virtually disappeared from official church history, as also did the Second Sirmian Council (Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God, 1999)]


Book: “Testimonies Of The Ancients In Favor Of Eusebius”, from the book “On the Lights of the Church”.

"Eusebius of Caesarea, the key of the Scriptures and custodian of the New Testament, is proved by the Greeks to be greater than many in his treatises. There are three celebrated works of his which truly testify to this: the Canons of the Four Gospels, which set forth and defend the New Testament, ten books of Ecclesiastical History, and the Chronicon, that is, a chronological summary. We have never found any one who has been able to follow in all his foot-prints."


Book “llustrious Men”, written by Jerome:

Chapter III.

MATTHEW, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not

follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist "Out of Egypt have I called my son," and "for he shall be called a Nazarene."

[Matthew wrote chiefly for Christians of Jewish origin. Much of the material peculiar to this Gospel is concerned with representing Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament. The time of composition frequently suggested is sometime after AD 70, perhaps about AD 80 ("Matthew, Gospel According to," 1994, Microsoft Encarta)].

Chapter LV.

AMMONIUS, a talented man of great philosophical learning, was distinguished at Alexandria, at the same time. Among many and distinguished monuments of his genius, is the elaborate work which he composed On the harmony of Moses and Jesus, and the Gospel canons, which he worked out, and which Eusebius of Caesarea, afterwards followed. Porphyry falsely accused him of having become a heathen again, after being a Christian, but it is certain that he continued a Christian until the very end of his life.

[The first notable Harmony of the Gospels was integrated by Ammonius of Alexandria, the teacher of Origen, his work bears this title for the first time (Gk. Armonia). It appeared about A.D. 220, but has been lost. Until recently, it was supposed that the sections into which some early MSS divide the Gospels were those of Ammonius himself; but, while he did make such divisions, those bearing his name are to be attributed to Eusebius (see below). Ammonius made Matthew the basis of his work, and by his arrangement destroyed the continuity of the separate narratives. Corruptions in the received text of the Gospel of Mark are probably due to the confusion of the separate narratives occasioned by Tatian's Diatessaron (“the discovery of an Armenian translation of a commentary upon the Diatessaron, by Ephraem the Syrian, has enabled Zahn to reconstruct a large part of the text. The commentary was translated into Latin in 1841, but little attention was paid to it until an edition by Moesinger appeared in 1876”). Tregelles (in the new edition of Horne's Introduction, vol. iv. p. 40) says that Tatian’s work “had more effect apparently in the text of the Gospels in use throughout the Church than all the designed falsifications of Marcion…” The Harmony of the Gospels, Introductory Essay, by Riddle M. B., on “Augustine’s Harmony Of The Gospels”]

Chapter LIV.

ORIGEN, surnamed Adamantius, a persecution having been raised against the Christians in the tenth year of Severus Pertinax, and his father Leonidas having received the crown of martyrdom for Christ, was left at the age of about seventeen, with his six brothers and widowed mother, in poverty, for their property had been confiscated because of confessing Christ. When only eighteen years old, he undertook the work of instructing the Catechetes in the scattered churches of Alexandria. Afterwards appointed by Demetrius, bishop of this city, successor to the presbyter Clement, he flourished many years. When he had already reached middle life, on account of the churches of Achaia, which were torn with many heresies, he was journeying to Athens, by way of Palestine,

under the authority of an ecclesiastical letter, and having been ordained presbyter by Theoctistus and Alexander, bishops of Caesarea and Jerusalem, he offended Demetrius, who was so wildly enraged at him that he wrote everywhere to injure his reputation. It is known that before he [Demetrius] went to Caesarea, he [Demetrius] had been at Rome, [with the] trader bishop Zephyrinus. Immediately on his [Demetrius] return to Alexandria he [Demetrius] made Heraclas the presbyter, who continued to wear his [Demetrius] philosopher's garb, [being] his [Demetrius] assistant in the school for catechetes. [So,] Heraclas became bishop of the church of Alexandria, after Demetrius. How great the glory of Origen was, appears from the fact that Firmilianus, bishop of Caesarea, with all the Cappadocian bishops, sought a visit from him, and entertained him for a long while. Sometime afterwards, going to Palestine to visit the holy places, he [Firmilianus] came to Caesarea and was instructed at length by Origen in the Holy Scriptures. It appears also from the fact that he [Origen] went to Antioch, on the request of Mammaea, mother of the Emperor Alexander, and a woman religiously disposed, and was there held in great honour, and sent letters to the Emperor Philip, who was the first among the Roman rulers, to become a Christian, and to his mother, letters which are still extant [at the time in which Jerome wrote this]. Who is there, who does not also know that he was so assiduous in the study of Holy Scriptures, that contrary to the spirit of his time, and of his people, he learned the Hebrew language, and taking the Septuagint translation, he gathered the other translations also in a single work, namely, that of Aquila, of Ponticus the Proselyte, and Theodotian the Ebonite, and Symmachus an adherent of the same sect who wrote commentaries also on the gospel according to Matthew, from which he tried to establish his doctrine. And besides these, a fifth, sixth, and seventh translation, which we also have from his library [in Jerome’s days, now lost], he sought out with great diligence, and compared with other editions. And since I have given a list of his works, in the volumes of letters which I have written to Paula, in a letter which I wrote against the works of Varro, I pass this by now, not failing however, to make mention of his immortal genius, how that he understood dialectics, as well as geometry, arithmetic, music, grammar, and rhetoric, and taught all the schools of philosophers, in such wise that he had also diligent students in secular literature, and lectured to them daily, and the crowds which flocked to him were marvellous. These, he received in the hope that through the instrumentality of this secular literature, he might establish them in the faith of Christ.

It is unnecessary to speak of the cruelty of that persecution which was raised against the Christians and under Decius, who was mad against the religion of Philip, whom he had slain,--the persecution in which Fabianus, bishop of the Roman church, perished at Rome, and Alexander and Babylas, Pontifs of the churches of Jerusalem and Antioch, were imprisoned for their confession of Christ. If any one wishes to know what was done in regard to the position of Origen, he can clearly learn, first indeed from his own epistles, which after the persecution, were sent to different ones, and secondly, from the sixth book of the church history of Eusebius of Caesarea, and from his six volumes in behalf of the same Origen.

He lived until the time of Gallus and Volusianus, that is, until his sixty-ninth year, and died at Tyre, in which city he also was buried.

[“Visiting in Palestine in 216, Origen, a layperson, was invited by the bishop of Jerusalem and the bishop of Caesarea to lecture in the churches on the Scriptures. About 230, the same bishops ordained him a presbyter without consulting Origen's own bishop, Demetrius of Alexandria. Demetrius objected, and two synods were held at Alexandria, the first forbidding Origen to teach there and the second depriving him of his priesthood. Origen He taught the principle of the threefold sense, corresponding to the threefold division of the person into body, spirit, and soul, which was then a common concept, he taught also that the Son is subordinate to the Father in power and dignity” ("Origen," 1994, Microsoft Encarta)].

Chapter LXXV.

PAMPHILUS the presbyter, patron of Eusebius bishop of Caesarea, was so inflamed with love of sacred literature, that he transcribed him greater part of the works of Origen with his own hand and these are still preserved in the library at Caesarea. I have twenty-five volumes of Commentaries of Origen, written in his hand, On the twelve prophets which I hug and guard with such joy, that I deem myself to have the wealth of Croesus. And if it is such joy to have one epistle of a martyr how much more to have so many thousand lines which seem to me to be traced in his blood. He wrote an Apology for Origen before Eusebius had written his and was put to death at Caesarea in Palestine in the persecution of Maximinus. [Pamphilus had an extensive library, 1994, Microsoft Encarta].

Chapter LXXXI.

EUSEBIUS bishop of Caesarea in Palestine was diligent in the study of Divine Scriptures and with Pamphilus the martyr a most diligent investigator of the Holy Bible. He published a great number of volumes among which are the following: Demonstrations of the Gospel twenty books, Preparations for the Gospel fifteen books, Theophany five books, Church history ten books, Chronicle of Universal history, and an Epitome of this last. Also On discrepancies between the Gospels, On Isaiah, ten books, also Against Porphyry, who was writing at that same time in Sicily as some think, twenty-five books, also one book of Topics, six books of Apology for Origen, three books On the life of Pamphilus, other brief works On the martyrs, exceedingly learned Commentaries on one hundred and fifty Psalms, and many others. He flourished chiefly in the reigns of Constantine the Great and Constantius. His surname Pamphilus arose from his friendship for Pamphilus the martyr.

[Eusebius of Caesarea (died A.D. 340) adopted a similar set of divisions for the gospels [like Ammonius’], adding to them numbers from 1 to 10, called "Canons," which indicate the parallelisms of the sections. These sections and canons are printed in Tischendorf's critical editions of the Greek Testament, and in some other editions [“they appear as an appendix in the critical text of Nestle, clearly indicating that Matthew’s original manuscript of his gospel did not contained any trinitarian end”, Dr. Cruz]. The influence of this system seems to have been great, but Eusebius often accepts a parallelism where there is really none whatever. Some of the sections are very brief, containing only part of a verse [but this last observation also can be the original briefness and integrity of older

texts from which Eusebius was quoting, as it is in the case of Mt. 28:19]… The work of Augustin comes next in order; it deals little with chronological questions, and shows no trace of such complete textual labour as that of Eusebius. The Reformation gave a new

impulse to this department of Biblical study


But the undisputed reign of the Textus

Receptus impeded investigation; the supernaturalism of the dominant theology was not

favourable to historical investigation

The Harmony of the Gospels, Introductory Essay,

... by Riddle M. B., on “Augustine’s Harmony Of The Gospels”]

Chapter XCIV.

ASTERIUS, a philosopher of the Arian party, wrote, during the reign of Constantius, commentaries On the Epistle to the Romans, On the Gospels and On the Psalms, also many other works which are diligently read by those of his party.

Chapter XCVII

FORTUNATIANUS, an African by birth, bishop of Aquilia during the reign of Constantius, composed brief Commentaries on the gospels arranged by chapters, written in a rustic style, and is held in detestation because, when Liberius bishop of Rome was driven into exile for the faith, he was induced by the urgency of Fortunatianus to subscribe to heresy.

Chapter XXXVI.

PANTAENUS, a philosopher of the stoic school, according to some old Alexandrian custom, where, from the time of Mark the evangelist the ecclesiastics were always doctors, was of so great prudence and erudition both in scripture and secular literature that, on the request of the legates of that nation, he was sent to India by Demetrius bishop of Alexandria, where he found that Bartholomew, one of the twelve apostles, had preached the advent of the Lord Jesus according to the gospel of Matthew, and on his return to Alexandria he brought this w th him written in Hebrew characters. Many of his commentaries on Holy Scripture are indeed extant, but his living voice was of still greater benefit to the churches. He taught in the reigns of the emperor Severus and Antoninus surnamed Caracalla.

Chapter XC.

THEODORUS, bishop of Heraclea in Thrace, published in the reign of the emperor Constantius commentaries On Matthew and John, On the Epistles and On the Psalter. These are written in a polished and clear style and show an excellent historical sense.



In citing the Old Testament, Aphrahat [Aphraates (Pharhad, Aphraatis) the Persian Sage,

who is Jacob or “James the Wise”, Bishop of Mar Mathai] follows the Peshitto rather than the Greek, but not seldom departs from both; and he shows a knowledge of the Chaldee Paraphrase. In citing the Gospels, he seems sometimes to follow the Diatessaron, which was in the hands of his contemporary Ephraim, and which is known to have circulated largely in the East until far on in the following century. Sometimes, however, his references seem to be to the separate Gospels as commodity read. It cannot be claimed for the Peshitto that he always or even usually follows its text; nor yet does he uniformly agree with the Curetonian, or with the probably earlier form of the Syriac Gospel recently discovered by Mr. Lewis. With each of these last, however, his text has many points of coincidence. In the rest of the New Testament, we can only say that he must have had before him a text which diverged not seldom from the Peshitto. Aphrahat “Demonstrations” are 22 in number, after the number of the letters of the Syriac alphabet, each of them beginning with the letter to which it corresponds in order. The first ten form a group by themselves, and are somewhat earlier in date than those which follow: they deal with Christian graces, hopes, and duties, as appears from their titles… At the end of section 5 of his Demonstration V (Concerning Wars), Aphrahat reckons the years from the era of Alexander (B.C. 311) to the time of his writing as 648. He wrote therefore in A.D. 337-the year of the death of Constantine the Great. Demonstration XIV is formally dated in its last section, "in the month Shebat, in the year 655 (that is, A.D. 344). More fully, in closing the alphabetic series (XXII. 25) he informs us that the above dates apply

to the two groups-the first ten being written in 337; the twelve that follow, in 344. Finally, the supplementary discourse "Concerning the Grape" was written (as stated in XXIII. 69) in July, 345. As a Persian, he dates his writings by the years of the reign of the Persian King: the twenty-two were completed (he says) in the thirty-fifth, the twenty-third in the thirty-sixth of the reign of Sapor. Thus, Aphrahat’s entire work was completed within nine years,-five years before the middle of the fourth century,-before the composition of the earliest work of Ephraim of which the date can be determined with certainty. It is clear also that, at whatever age or under whatever circumstances he embraced Christianity, Aphrahat must have taken the Christian Scriptures and Christian theology into his inmost heart and understanding as every page of his writings attests. The Bishop of Mar Mathai was Metropolitan of Nineveh, and ranked among the Bishops of “the East” only second to the Catholicus; and his province bordered on that which the Catholicus (as Metropolitan of Seleucia) held in his immediate jurisdiction. Aphrahat

directed his 14th dissertation to “the Bishops, Priests and Deacons

and all the people of

... God who are in Seleucia and Ctesiphon.” The monastery of Mar Mathai was on the eastern, that is, the Persian, side of the Tigris, not far from what once was Nineveh and is now Mosul, on the precipitous mountain Elpheph (now Maklob) where it still stands, though ruinous, and is known by the name of Sheikh Matta, and is occupied by the Metram (or Metropolitan) and a few monks. To the remoteness of Aphrahat see, and probably of the place of his obvious origin and abode, from the centres of religious thought and controversy, is probably due the notable absence from these discourses of all reference to the theological questions that had employed, and in his time were “engrossing”, the leading minds of Christendom. In an age of excited controversy, these quiet hortatory discourses, marked by no striking eloquence of style or subtlety of reasoning, dealing with no burning question of the time, nor with any disputes more recent than those of the two previous centuries. Among Syriac authors, the first to show

an acquaintance with Aphrahat’s work, is Isaac of Antioch, known as “the Great” (disciple of Zenobius of Edessa) whose literary activity belongs to the first half of the fifth century. This Isaac knew and imitated the works of Aphrahat,as in Isaac’s works, passages have been pointed out which are evidently borrowed with slight change from Aphrahat’s Demonstrations. The imitation, however, is tacit, and Isaac nowhere names the work (or its author) whence he derived the illustrations and even the expressions he uses in treating of these topics. Oblivion so long covered the name of Aphrahat. [Aphrahat’s work], and provoked some prejudice which led to its practical suppression. It would be difficult, however, to point out anything in it to which exception could be so seriously taken as to be a bar to its acceptance. None of the errors which so keen a critic as Georgius detected in its theology—even if we admit the justice of his censure—is such as to shock the orthodoxy of the fourth or fifth century. Yet it is possible that theological prepossession may indirectly have brought about the disfavour or at least disuse into which the Demonstrations fell. In Edessa there was an institution known as the “School of the Persians”… the Persian and others were expelled from Edessa by Nonnus, an orthodox opponent and successor; and the school was finally closed by the next Bishop, Cyrus, in the reign of Zeno (who died 491). These facts may well be supposed to have raised a prejudice against all writings coming from a Persian source… It is probable that his [Aphrahat] writings were read in that “School of the Persians”, and that he himself may have studied them in early life. Prescribed in Edessa, the centre of Syriac theology, these discourses would be effectually checked in their circulation in all churches of Syriac-speaking Christendom that were anti-Nestorian. From and after the close of the fourth century “greater (i.e. Eastern) Armenia was ruled as a dependency of Persia, by Persian Kings.” Of these the earlier at least were Christians, and their policy led them to promote the Syriac language and literature, as against the Greek, among their people; until, under the Catholicus Isaac (d. 441), the Armenian tongue was reduced to writing (in the characters then invested by Mesrob), and a beginning made of an Armenian sacred literature by the translation of the Scriptures into Armenian from the Syriac. Aphrahat Syriac text, so long forgotten, was first discovered among the mss of the great Nitrian collection in the British Museum, by Dr. Cureton, whose name is so honourably known as a great Syriac scholar, and editor of Syriac documents. He did not live, however, to accomplish his desire of publishing it, but bequeathed that task to his still more eminent successor, in the leadership of Syriac studies in England, the late Dr. William Wright, then assistant keeper of mss in the British Museum, and afterwards Professor of Arabic in the University of Cambridge. To him is due the admirable “editio princeps” of the Syriac text of all the twenty-three Demonstrations (from the mss 14617 and 17182), issued in London, 1869.

[Schaff And Wace, Vol. XIII, A Select Library Of Nicene And Post-Nicene Fathers Of The Christian Church, Second Series, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids]


ARIUS. A native of Libya who studied at the theological school of Lucian of Antioch. After he was ordained a priest in Alexandria, Arius became involved (319) in a

controversy with his bishop Alexander concerning the divinity of Christ. Arius was finally exiled (325) to Illyria because of his beliefs, but debate over his doctrine soon engulfed the whole church and agitated it for more than half a century. Although his doctrine was eventually outlawed (379) throughout the Roman Empire by Emperor Theodosius I, it survived for two centuries longer among the barbarian tribes that had been converted to Christianity by Arian bishops. Arius taught that God is unbegotten and without beginning. The Son, because he is begotten, cannot be God in the same sense that the Father is, Jesus did not exist from all eternity, he is a creature, tough much more perfect that any other creature, and exists by the will of the Father. The teaching of Arius was condemned in 325 at the first ecumenical council at Nicaea. The bishops assembled there drafted a creed which stated that the Son of God was “begotten not made,” and consubstantial (Greek homoousios, “of the same substance”, formulated by Athanasius) with the Father. Previously, no creed had been universally accepted by all churches. The status of the new creed as dogma was confirmed by bans against the teaching of Arius. Despite its condemnation, the teaching of Arius did not die. Under the influence of the Greek church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, whose orthodoxy had also been questioned, Emperor Constantine I recalled Arius from exile about 334. Soon after, two influential people came to the support of Arianism: The next emperor, Constantius II, was attracted to the Arian doctrine; the bishop and theologian Eusebius of Nicomedia, later patriarch of Constantinople, become an Arian leader. By 359 Arianism had prevailed and was the official faith of the empire. The semi-Arians consisted mostly of conservative eastern bishops, who basically agreed with the Nicene Creed but were hesitant about the unscriptural term homoousios (consubstantial) used in the creed. The neo-Arians said that the Son was of a different essence (Greek heteroousios) from, or unlike (Greek anomoios), the Father. With the death of Constantius II, in 361; and the reign of Valens who persecuted the semi-Arians, the way was opened for the final victory of Nicene orthodoxy, recognized by Emperor Theodosius in 379 and reaffirmed at the second ecumenical council (Constantinople) held in 381 ("Arianism," and ‘Athanasius,’1994, Microsoft Encarta).

“Arius, a priest of about sixty, had been born in Libya, in the area of the Five Cities. In 314, shortly after becoming bishop, Alexander had licensed him to preach at a church in the Baucalis district near the Great Harbor and to look after the district’s residents. The tall, slender, gray-haired man was a famous speaker, or perhaps, one should say, singer, since he was in the habit of putting his theology into poetry and chanting it to his enraptured congregants. According to the bishop, his talent for vivid imagery and music had become part of the problem. Arius had recently written a long poem called Thalia – The Banquet – in a rhythmic meter ordinarily used for popular ballads. It was already chanted in port cities all around the eastern Mediterranean. Popular songs, like grain and news, traveled quickly by sea. In his youth, Arius had studied Christian theology with the famous teacher and martyr, Lucian of Antioch. Before the Great Persecution, he had come to Alexandria to pursue a religious vocation, and he had reportedly behaved bravely, during the terror, offering priestly services to parishioners and to Christians held in prison at considerable risk of himself. When Bishop Peter fled the city, he remained behind…Arius had been a successful minister. He was greatly admired for his personal purity as well as for his preaching and was a particular favorite of the sailors,

dockworkers, and young women who flocked his church. The church’s sodality of virgins…protested in public when he was ordered to leave the city by Bishop Alexander. And since his departure, the priest’s partisans among the young men had clashed incessantly with Alexander’s supporters” (Rubenstein, R. E., When Jesus Became God, 1999, Harcourt, pp. 52-53).

Next is our version of an excerpt on Arius’ poem,


…The Father made the Son,

A beginning of things He made on earth.

The Father was,

The Son was not before he came to pass.

The Father and His Son,

Both have a different glory.

One equal to the Son

The Father yes, can make,

One equal to Himself

The Father is not able.

And at his Father’s will, the Son is what he is.

The Father is the higher,

As He is which He is: The Father!

The Father knows the Son,

The Son knows not

All that the Father knows…

[We include next other fragments of the Thalia, as quoted by Athanasius, Sozomen and by Socrates Scolasticus, no doubt biased. An Athanasus’ excerpt appeared in his Oration Against the Arians, published by Quasten, Patrology, 12. In Rubenstein’s quotation of the Thalia he replaced several antique Athanasian words with modern synonyms, and

changed the order of the quotations for clarity. “Since Arius’ writings were lost or destroyed, the accounts of his teachings are based on reports by others – most of them his theological enemies”, When Jesus Became God, pp. 55, 245 (notes 53 and 57)]

Four Discourses Against The Arians, written by Athanasius between 356 And 360 A. D.:

Chapter II. Extracts From The Thalia Of Arius.

Arius maintains that God became a Father, and the Son was not always; the Son out of nothing; once He was not; He was not before his generation; He was created; named Wisdom and Word after God's attributes; made that He might make us; one out of many powers of God; alterable; exalted on God's foreknowledge of what He was to be; not very God; but called so as others by participation; foreign in essence from the Father ...

5. Now the commencement of Arius's Thalia… runs thus:--

'According to faith of God's elect, God's prudent ones,

Holy children, rightly dividing, God's Holy Spirit receiving,

Have I learned this from the partakers of wisdom,

Accomplished, divinely taught, and wise in all things.

Along their track, have I been walking, with like opinions.

I the very famous, the much suffering for God's glory;

And taught of God, I have acquired wisdom and knowledge.'

And…:--'God was not always a Father; but 'once God was alone, and not yet a Father, but afterwards He became a Father.' 'The Son was not always;' for, whereas all things were made out of nothing, and all existing creatures and works were made, so the Word of God Himself was 'made out of nothing,' and 'once He was not,' and 'He was not before His origination,' but He as others 'had an origin of creation.' 'For God,' he says, was alone, and the Word as yet was not, nor the Wisdom. Then, wishing to form us, thereupon He made a certain one, and named Him Word and Wisdom and Son, that He might form us by means of Him.' Accordingly, he says that there are two wisdoms, first, the attribute co- existent with God, and next, that in this wisdom the Son was originated, and was only named Wisdom and Word as partaking of it. 'For Wisdom,' saith he, 'by the will of the wise God, had its existence in Wisdom.' In like manner, he says, that there is another Word in God besides the Son, and that the Son again, as partaking of it, is named Word and Son according to grace… there are many powers; one of which is God's own by nature and eternal; but that Christ, on the other hand, is not the true power of God; but, as others, one of the so-called powers… is called in Scripture, not merely the power, but the 'great power.' The others are many and are like the Son, and of them David speaks in the

Psalms, when he says, 'The Lord of hosts' or 'powers.' And by nature, as all others, so the Word Himself is alterable, and remains good by His own free will, while He chooseth; when, however, He wills, He can alter as we can, as being of an alterable nature. For 'therefore,' saith he, 'as foreknowing that He would be good, did God by anticipation bestow on Him this glory, which afterwards, as man, He attained from virtue. Thus in consequence of His works fore-known, did God bring it to pass that He being such, should come to be.'

6. Moreover he [Arius] has dared to say, that 'the Word is not the very God'… He is not '

very God,' but 'by participation of grace

And, whereas all beings are foreign and

... different from God in essence, so too is 'the Word alien and unlike in all things to the

Father's essence and propriety,' but belongs to things originated and created, and is one of these…

Chapter III. The Importance Of The Subject. Arianism

with a beginning



that Jesus] is a creature

... The Arians rely on state patronage, and dare not avow their tenets.

8. …The use of certain phrases of divine Scripture changes, in their [Arius’ et al] opinion, the blasphemy of the Thalia into reverent language…

9. …what have these persons to shew us from the infamous Thalia ? ...

10. …if He [Jesus] be… God from God… is it not becoming to obliterate and blot out… that Arian Thalia ?…

De Synodis -- Councils Of Ariminum And Seleucia Written by Athanasius, 359 A. D., added to after 361 A. D.:

Part II. History Of Arian Opinions.

Arius's own sentiments; his Thalia and Letter to S. Alexander; corrections by Eusebius and others; extracts from the works of Asterius; letter of the Council of Jerusalem; first Creed of Arians at the Dedication of Antioch; second, Lucian's on the same occasion; third, by Theophronius; fourth, sent to Constans in Gaul; fifth, the Macrostich sent into Italy; sixth, at Sirmium; seventh, at the same place; and eighth also, as given above in 8 (“the term 'essence,' has been adopted by the Fathers in simplicity, and gives offence as being misconceived by the people, and is not contained in the Scriptures, it has seemed good to remove it, that it be never in any case used of God again, because the divine Scriptures nowhere use it of Father and Son”); ninth, at Seleucia; tenth, at Constantinople; eleventh, at Antioch.

15. Arius and those with him thought and professed thus: 'God made the Son out of nothing, and called Him His Son; Word of God is one of the creatures;' and 'Once He was not;' and 'He is alterable; capable, when it is His Will, of altering.' Accordingly they were expelled from the Church by the blessed Alexander. However, after his expulsion, when he was with Eusebius and his fellows, he drew up his heresy upon paper, and imitating in

the Thalia no grave writer, but the Egyptian Sotades [Sotadus], in the dissolute tone of his metre, he writes at great length, for instance as follows:--

Blasphemies of Arius.

God Himself then, in His own nature, is ineffable by all men. Equal or like Himself He alone has none, or one in glory. And Ingenerate we call Him, because of Him who is generate by nature. We praise Him as without beginning because of Him who has a beginning. And adore Him as everlasting, because of Him who in time has come to be.

The Unbegun made the Son a beginning of things originated; and advanced Him as a Son to Himself by adoption. He has nothing proper to God in proper subsistence. For He is not equal, no, nor one in essence with Him. Wise is God, for He is the teacher of Wisdom. There is full proof that God is invisible to all beings; both to things which are through the Son, and to the Son He is invisible. I will say it expressly, how by the Son is seen the Invisible; by that power by which God sees, and in His own measure, the Son endures to see the Father, as is lawful… One more glorious than the other in their glories unto immensity. Foreign from the Son in essence is the Father, for He is without beginning. Understand that the Monad was; but the Dyad was not, before it was in existence. It follows at once that, though the Sire [Son] was not, the Father was God. Hence the Son, not being (for He existed at the will of the Father), is God Only-


Wisdom existed as Wisdom by the will of the Wise God… Understand that He

... is conceived to be Radiance and Light. One equal to the Son, the Superior is able to beget; but one more excellent, or superior, or greater, He is not able. At God's will the

Son is what and whatsoever He is. And when and since He was, from that time He has subsisted from God… To speak in brief, God is ineffable to His Son. For He is to Himself

what He is, that is, unspeakable


being Son, he really existed, at the will of the Father…

De Decretis Or Defense Of The Nicene Definition, Chapter IV, written by Athanasius between 346 and his flight in 356:

… when they are beaten hence, and like Eusebius and his fellows, are in these great straits, then they have this remaining plea, which Arius too in ballads, and in his own Thalia, fabled…

Ad Episcopos Aegypti Et Libyae, Epistola Encyclica, written by Athanasius (A.D. 356), addressed to the bishops of his Province after his expulsion by Syrianus (Feb. 8, 356), Chapter II. 20. While they are friends of Arius, in vain their moderate words:

…Had the opinions they have put in writing been orthodox, they would have expunged from their list of books the Thalia of Arius…

The Ecclesiastical History Of Salaminius Hermias Sozomenus [Sozomen], Book I:

[The work before us seems to have been commenced about the year 443. It embraces a period of 117 years; namely, from A.D. 323 to A.D. 439. It is generally admitted to have suffered many alterations and mutilations]

Chapter XXI. -- What The Council Determined About Arius [The Council Convened At Nicaea On Account Of Arius, according to Chap. XVII]; The Condemnation Of His Followers; His Writings Are To Be Burnt; Certain Of The High Priests Differ From The Council ...

…The council excommunicated Arius and his adherents, and prohibited his entering Alexandria. The words in which his opinions were couched were likewise condemned, as also a work entitled "Thalia," which he had written on the subject. I have not read this book, but I understand that it is of a loose character, resembling in license Sotadus.

The Ecclesiastical History, By Socrates Scholasticus, Book I:

Chapter IX. The Letter of the Synod, relative to its Decisions: and the Condemnation of Arius and those who agreed with him.

…It should be observed moreover that Arius had written a treatise on his own opinion which he entitled Thalia: but the character of the book is loose and dissolute, similar in its style and metres to the songs of Sotades. This production also the Synod condemned at the same time…


JUSTIN MARTYR (circa 100-circa 165), philosopher, theologian, and one of the earliest apologists of the Christian church, who sought to reconcile Christian doctrine and pagan culture. He was born in Flavia Neapolis (now Nabulus, West Bank), a Roman city built on the site of the ancient Shechem, in Samaria. His parents were pagans. As a young man Justin devoted himself to the study of Greek philosophy, notably the writings of Plato and the Stoic philosophers. His study of the Old and New Testaments caused him to convert to Christianity, and thereafter he strove by his teachings and writings to bring others to the truths he had discovered. Justin was beheaded during the reign of the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius because he refused to offer sacrifice to the pagan gods. The books that are ascribed to him with certainty are the two Apologies for the Christians, which comprise an erudite defense of Christians against charges of atheism and sedition in the Roman state, and the Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, which professes to be the record of an actual discussion at Ephesus. His writings are valuable for the information they give about the 2nd-century Christian church (Justin Martyr, 1994, Microsoft Encarta, Funk & Wagnall's Corporation).


TATIAN’S DIATESSARON, by Dr. Ethelbert W. Bullinger (Things to Come, 1(2):30-31,


“Tatian…(A.D. 110-180, was a pupil of Justin Martyr who lived by 114 to 165 A.D.) compiled… about the year 130 to 150 A. D… [a work that until quite recently was

supposed to be lost]… the Diatessaron… [which] means, through four, i.e., one through four (is the technical term in music for the interval of the fourth. Tessares means four. In music, through four notes; just as diapason means through all, i.e., all eight notes, and was used of the octave). In English idiom it would be represented by our word “Harmony,” when we speak of “a harmony of the four gospels,” i.e., one produced by means of the four…” In Tatian’s work An Address to Greeks he writes that he was an “initiate” of the ancient “mysteries,” but that he was shocked by “demons” instigating to the perpetration of evil, “retiring”, he says, “by myself, I sought how I might be able to discover the truth; and while I was giving my most earnest attention to the matter, I happened to meet with certain barbaric writings [the books of the Hebrew Old Testament. How wondrous thus to hear of the power of God’s Word!] too old to be compared with the opinions of the Greeks, and too divine to be compared with their errors; and I was led to put faith in these by the unpretending cast of the language, the inartificial character of the writers, the foreknowledge displayed by future events, the excellent quality of the precepts, and the declaration of the government of the universe as centered in one Being; and my soul being taught of God, I discerned that the former class of writings [the Greek philosophies and mythologies] lead to condemnation, but that these put an end to the slavery that is in the world, and rescue us from a multiplicity of rulers and ten thousand tyrants.” His address concludes thus “These things, O Greeks, I Tatian… have composed for you. I was born in the land of the Assyrians, having been first instructed in your doctrines, and afterwards in those which I now undertake to proclaim. Henceforward, knowing who God is, and what is His work, I present myself to you prepared for an examination concerning my doctrines, while I adhere immoveably to that mode of life which is according to God” [the names of other works of Tatian have come down to us; e.g., A Book of Problems (explaining what seemed obscure in the Old Testament), Of Perfection According to the Saviour, On Animals, A Collection of the Epistles of St. Paul (some eleven “fragments” of these, as preserved in quotations by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, and others, are given in vol. xlii of T. and T. Clark’s Ante-Nicene Christian Library, pp. 46-48)] Tatian was received into the church of Rome, dying at Edessa. Eusebius (A.D. 325) in his Ecc. History (iv. 29) speaks of the Diatessaron, though he had not seen it. Epiphanius in his work on Heresies (about 374 A. D.) says, “The Diatessaron Gospel is said to have been composed by Tatian, which some call according to the Hebrews” (Cap. xlvi. I). Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, near the Euphrates, about 420 A.D., speaks of having collected and put away some 200 copies of the Diatessaron, replacing them by [newer] copies of the four evangelists. It was doubtless written in Syriac and therefore inaccessible to Greek and Latin churches, while it was being used in the Syrian Churches to the exclusion of the separate gospels… In the Vatican Library is an Arabic MS numbered xiv. But no one knew anything of it until 1883, when Agostino Ciasca, one of the Guild of Writers to the Vatican, examined it and published an essay on it in Paris, entitled, On the Arabic Version of Tatian’s Diatessaron. Still the MS itself remained in Arabic, untranslated. In 1886 Ciasca happened to show the MS to Antonio Moreos, Visitor Apostolic to the Catholic Copts, who said he had seen one like it in Egypt, and could obtain it for him. In August, 1886, the promised MS arrived in Rome, evidently a copy of the same work as “MS xiv.” This MS Ciasca selected for translation, and in 1888 he published a Latin Translation of it in honour of the Pope’s Jubilee. The latter MS distinctly states that it was translated from the Syriac into Arabic.

This must have been before 1043 A.D., as the translator, Abû-l-Faraj, died in that year. Tatian’s work has been translated into English with a valuable and elaborate introduction and appendix by the Rev. J. Hamlyn Hill, B.D., and published by T. and T. Clark. Mr. Hill concludes by saying “has been a subject of interest to Christians of every age since it was first written, around which so many controversies have revolved, which has been in its entirety so singularly recovered in our own day, which throws so much light upon the information possessed by Christians of the second century, and which at the same time possesses a national interest” (an account of the Diatessaron has been written by the Pastor William Elliot of Plymouth, entitled Tatian’s Diatessaron and the Modern Critics)”.


Book: “The Life Of The Blessed Emperor Constantine”, by Eusebius Pamphilus,

Book IV, Chapter XXXIV.

That he wrote to Eusebius respecting Easter, and respecting Copies of the Holy Scriptures.

EVER careful for the welfare of the churches of God, the emperor addressed me personally in a letter on the means of providing copies of the inspired oracles, and also on the subject of the most holy feast of Easter.

Chapter XXXVI.

Constantine' s Letter to Eusebius on the Preparation of Copies of the Holy Scriptures.

"Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus [Constantinus Augustus, the great and the victorious], to Eusebius.

"It happens, through the favoring providence of God our Saviour [God the Saviour], that great numbers have united themselves to the most holy church in the city which is called by my name [which bears our name]. It seems, therefore, highly requisite, since that city is rapidly advancing in prosperity in all other respects, that the number of churches should also he increased. Do you, therefore, receive with all readiness my determination on this behalf. I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies [volumes] of the sacred Scriptures [of the Holy Scriptures], the provision and use of which you know to be most needful for the instruction of the [congregation of the] Church, to be written on prepared [fine] parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form [handy], by professional [skilled] transcribers [calligraphers] thoroughly practiced in their art. The catholicus (procurator, financial agent) of the diocese has also received instructions by letter from our Clemency to be careful to furnish all things necessary for the preparation of such copies; and it will be for you to take special care that they be completed with as little delay as possible [within a short space of time]. You have authority also, in virtue of this letter, to use two of the public carriages

for their conveyance, by which arrangement the copies when fairly written will most easily be forwarded for my personal inspection; and one of the deacons of your church may be intrusted with this service [Appoint one of the deacons of your church to take charge of this part of the business], who, on his arrival here, shall experience my liberality [he shall receive proofs of our benevolence]. God preserve you, beloved brother!"

Chapter XXXVII.

How the Copies were provided.

SUCH were the emperor's commands, which were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself, which we sent him in magnificent and elaborately bound volumes of a threefold and fourfold form. This fact is attested by another letter, which the emperor wrote in acknowledgment, in which, having heard that the city Constantia in our country, the inhabitants of which had been more than commonly devoted to superstition, had been impelled by a sense of religion to abandon their past idolatry, he testified his joy, and approval of their conduct.

[The letter on Chapter 36 also appeared in the book “Testimonies Of The Ancients In Favor Of Eusebius”, in which the word “catholicus” is translated “procurator”, and in the book “The Ecclesiastical History, by Socrates Scholasticus, Book I, Chapter 9”, in which the word “catholicus” is translated as “financial agent”, and also in the book: “The Ecclesiastical History Of Theodoret”, Book I, Chapter XV, The Epistle of Constantine concerning the preparation of copies of the Holy Scriptures. (Theodoret’s translations are merged in Eusebius’ text using brackets [ ] )]


Book: “The Life And Writings Of Eusebius Of Caesarea”. Chapter II. The Writings Of Eusebius.

V. Critical And Exegetical Works.

Biblical Texts. We learn from Jerome (Pr'f. in librum Paralip.) that Eusebius and Pamphilus published a number of copies of Origen's edition of the LXX., that is, of the fifth column of the Hexapla… These editions of the LXX. must have been issued before the year 309, when Pamphilus suffered martyrdom, and in all probability before 307, when he was imprisoned (see Lardner's Credibility, Part II. chap. 72.

In later years we find Eusebius again engaged in the publication of copies of the Scriptures. According to the Vita Const. IV. 36, 37, the Emperor wrote to Eusebius, asking him to prepare fifty sumptuous copies of the Scriptures for use in his new Constantinopolitan churches. The commission was carefully executed, and the MSS prepared at great cost. It has been thought that among our extant MSS may be some of these copies which were produced under Eusebius' supervision, but this is extremely

improbable (see Lightfoot, p. 334)

Ten Evangelical Canons, with the Letter to Carpianus prefixed (kanones deka; Canones decem harmoniae evangeliorum pr'missa ad Carpianum epistola). Ammonius of Alexandria, early in the third century had constructed a harmony of the Gospels, in which, taking Matthew as the standard, he placed alongside of that Gospel the parallel passages from the three others. Eusebius' work was suggested by this Harmony, as he tells us in his epistle to Carpianus. An inconvenient feature of Ammonius' work was that only the Gospel of Matthew could be read continuously, the sequence of the other Gospels being broken in order to bring their parallel sections into the order followed by Matthew. Eusebius, desiring to remedy this defect, constructed his work on a different principle. He made a table of ten canons, each containing a list of passages as follows:

Canon I. passages common to all four Gospels; II. those common to Matthew, Mark, and Luke; III. those common to Matt, Luke, and John; IV. those common to Matt., Mark, and John; V. those common to Matthew and Luke; VI. those common to Matt. and Mark; VII. those common to Matt. and John; VIII. those common to Luke and Mark; IX. those common to Luke and John; X. those peculiar to each Gospel: first to Matthew, second to Mark, third to Luke, and fourth to John… It has indeed never been superseded, and the sections and canons are still indicated in the margins of many of our best Greek Testaments (e.g., in those of Tregelles and of Tischendorf)… For further particulars in regard to them, see Lightfoot’s article on Eusebius, p. 334 sq., and Scrivener’s Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 2d ed. p. 54 sq. The canons, with the letter to Carpianus prefixed, are given to Migne, Opera, IV. 1275–1292.

Gospel Questions and Solutions. This work consists of two parts, or of two separate works combined. The first bears the title Gospel Questions and Solutions addressed to Stephanus (pro “Stefanon peri twn en euaggelioi” zhthmatwn kai lusewn), and is referred to by Eusebius in his Dem. Evang. VII. 3, as Questions and Solutions on the Genealogy of our Saviour (twn ei “thn genealogian tou swthro” hmwn zhthmatwn kai lusewn). The second part is entitled Gospel Questions and Solutions addressed to Marinus (pro Marinon). The first work consisted of two books, we learn from the opening of the second work. In that passage, referring to the previous work, Eusebius says that having discussed there the difficulties which beset the beginning of the Gospels, he will now proceed to consider questions concerning the latter part of them, the intermediate portions being omitted. He thus seems to regard the two works as in a sense forming parts of one whole. In his de vir ill. 81, Jerome mentions among the writings of Eusebius one On the Discrepancy of the Gospels (De Evangeliorum Diaphonia), and in his Comm. in Matt. chap. I. vers. 16, he refers to Eusebius’ libri diafwnia euaggeliwn. Ebedjesu also remarks, “Eusebius Caesariensis composuit librum solutionis contradictionum evangelii.” In the sixteenth century there were found in Sicily, according to the announcement of Latino Latini, “libri tres Eusebii Caesariensis de Evangeliorum diaphonia,” but nothing more has been heard or seen of this Sicilian ms. There can be no doubt that the work referred to under the title De Evangeliorum Diaphonia is identical with the Gospel Questions and Solutions, for the discrepancies in the Gospels occupy a considerable space in the Questions and Solutions as we have it, and the word diafwnia occurs frequently. The three books mentioned by Latino Latini were therefore the two books addressed to

Stephanus which Eusebius himself refers to, and the one book addressed to Marinus. The complete work is no longer extant, but an epitome of it was discovered and published by Mai, together with numerous fragments of the unabridged work, two of them in Syriac (Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. 217 sq.; reprinted by Migne, Opera, IV. 879–1016). In the epitome the work addressed to Stephanus consists of sixteen chapters, and the division into two books is not retained. The work addressed to Marinus consists of only four chapters. The work purports to have been written in answer to questions and difficulties suggested by Stephanus and Marinus, who are addressed by Eusebius in terms of affection and respect. The first work devoted chiefly to a discussion of the genealogies of Christ, as given by Matthew and Luke; the second work deals with the apparent discrepancies between the accounts of the resurrection as given by the different evangelists. Eusebius does not always reach a solution of the difficulties, but his work is suggestive and interesting. The question as to the date of the work is complicated by the fact that there is in the Dem. Evang. VII. 3 a reference to the Questions and Solutions addressed to Stephanus, while in the epitome of the latter work (Quaest. VII. §7) there is a distinct reference to the Demonstratio Evang. This can be satisfactorily explained only by supposing, with Lightfoot, that the Epitome was made at a later date than the original work, and that then Eusebius inserted this reference to the Demonstratio. We are thus led to assume two editions of this work, as of the others of Eusebius’ writings, the second edition being a revised abridgement of the first. The first edition, at least of the Qeaestions ad Stephanum, must have been published before the Demonstratio Evangelica. We cannot fix the date of the epitome, nor of the Quaestiones ad Marinum ..

Commentary on Luke (ei to kata Loukan euallelion). This work is no longer extant, but considerable fragments of it exist and have been published by Mai (Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. 159 sq.; reprinted by Migne, Opera, VI. 529–606). Although the fragments are all drawn from Catenae on Luke, there are many passages which seem to have been taken from a commentary on Matthew (see notes of the editor). A number of extracts from the work are found in Eusebius’ Theophania (see Mai’s introduction to his fragments of the latter work).

The date of the commentary cannot be fixed with certainty, but I am inclined to place it before the persecution of Diocletian, for the reason that there appears in the work, so far as I have discovered, no hint of a persecution, although the passages expounded offer many opportunities for such a reference, which it is difficult to see how the author could have avoided making if a persecution were in progress while he was writing; and further, because in discussing Christ’s prophecies of victory and dominion over the whole world, no reference is made to the triumph gained by the Church in the victories of Constantine. A confirmation of this early date may be found in the extreme simplicity of the exegesis, which displays neither the wide learning, nor the profound study that mark the commentaries on the Psalms and on Isaiah.

Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. This work is no longer extant, and we know of it only from a reference in Jerome’s Ep. ad Pammachium, §3 (Migne’s ed. Ep. 49): “Origenes, Dionysius, Pierius, Eusebius Caesariensis, Didymus, Apollinaris latissime hanc Epistolam interpretati sunt.

“Eusebius’ apology in five books for Origen's teachings is now lost. Eusebius was averse to discussing “the nature of the trinity” and preferred the simple language of the Scriptures to “the subtleties of metaphysical distinctions” ["Eusebius of Caesarea," Microsoft (R) Encarta. Copyright (c) 1994 Microsoft Corporation. Copyright (c) 1994 Funk & Wagnall's Corporation”]


“First Book Against Eusebius of Caesarea's “Apology for Origen” ”, Antipater, Bishop of Bostra:

"Since now, this man was very learned, having searched out and traced back all the books and writings of the more ancient writers, and having set forth the opinions of almost all of them… Eusebius would not have chosen to take this view, unless he had accurately ascertained that all the opinions of the ancients required it. I, indeed, agree and admit that the man was very learned, and that not anything of the more ancient writings escaped his knowledge; for, taking advantage of the imperial co-operation, he was enabled easily to collect for his use material from whatever quarter."

"Moreover, Theodore of Mopsuestia relates that there were only nine persons out of all whom the decrees of the Synod did not please, and that their names are as follows:

Theognis of Nica (Nic'a), Eusebius of Nicomedia, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, Narcissus of Neronias in Cilicia, which is now called Irenopolis, Paulinus of Tyre, Menophantus of Ephesus, Secundus of Ptolemaïs, which borders upon Egypt, and Theonas of Marmarica."

"I deny that the man has yet arrived at an accurate knowledge of the doctrines; wherefore he ought to be given place to so far as regards his great learning, but as regards his knowledge of doctrine he ought not. "


Book: “The Ecclesiastical History Of Theodoret”, Book I, Chapter IV.

The Letter of Arius to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia.

[Arius,] To his very dear lord, the man of God, the faithful and orthodox Eusebius, Arius, [who is] unjustly persecuted by Alexander the Pope, on account of that all-conquering truth of which you also are a champion, sendeth greeting in the Lord. Ammonius, my father, being about to depart for Nicomedia, I considered myself bound to salute you by him, and withal to inform that natural affection which you bear towards the brethren for the sake of God and His Christ, that the bishop greatly wastes and persecutes us, and leaves no stone unturned against us… Eusebius your brother bishop of Caesarea, Theodotus, Paulinus, Athanasius, Gregorius, Aetius, and all the bishops of the East, have been condemned because they say that God had an existence prior to that of His Son ...

But we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor

in any way part of the unbegotten

established, He was not

before He was begotten, or created, or purposed, or

... We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a

... beginning, but that God is without beginning

part of God, nor of any essential being

And this we say, because He is neither

... [Arius friends mentioned were: Eusebius was

... bishop of Caesarea, Theodotus of Laodicea, Paulinus of Tyre, Athanasius of Anazarbus, Gregorius of Berytus, and Aetius of Lydda. Lydda is now called Diospolis. Arius adversaries were: Philogonius, bishop of Antioch, Hellanicus, of Tripolis, and Macarius, of Jerusalem… enemies which claimed that the Son is eternal, existing before all ages, of equal honour and of the same substance with the Father. All the works of Arius were destroyed by catholic censorship; all that we know of Arius is mainly because of the written comments against them, by his adversaries]


From the “Epistle of Eusebius of Nicomedia, to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre” (given by Theodoret in his “Eccles. Hist.” I. 6).

"Neither has the zeal of my lord Eusebius concerning the truth, nor thy silence in this matter been unknown, but has reached even us. And, as was fitting, on the one hand we have rejoiced on account of my lord Eusebius; but on the other, we are grieved on thy account, since we look upon the silence of such a man as a condemnation of our cause."


Book: “The Church History Of Eusebius”, Book VI.

Origen, who is highly honored

For this man, having been a hearer of Ammonius, who

... had attained the greatest proficiency in philosophy of any in our day, derived much benefit from his teacher in the knowledge of the sciences; but as to the correct choice of life, he pursued a course opposite to his. For Ammonius, being a Christian, and brought up by Christian parents, when he gave himself to study and to philosophy straightway conformed to the life required by the laws. Ammonius held the divine philosophy unshaken and unadulterated to the end of his life. His works yet extant show this, as he is celebrated among many for the writings which he has left. For example, the work entitled The Harmony of Moses and Jesus, and such others as are in the possession of the learned (Chapter XIX, Circumstances related of Origen). There flourished many learned men in the Church at that time, whose letters to each other have been preserved and are easily accessible. They have been kept until our time in the library at AElia, which was established by Alexander, who at that time presided over that church. We have been able to gather from that library material for our present work. Among these Beryllus has left us, besides letters and treatises, various elegant works. He was bishop of Bostra in Arabia (Chapter XX, The Extant Works of the Writers of that Age). It may be well to add that in the sixth book of his exposition of the Gospel of John he states that he prepared the first five while in Alexandria. Of his work on the entire Gospel [of John] only twenty-two volumes have come down to us… He wrote also the books De Principiis before leaving

Alexandria; and the discourses entitled Stromata (Chapter XXIV, The Commentaries which he prepared at Alexandria). While Origen was carrying on his customary duties in Caesarea, many pupils came to him not only from the vicinity, but also from other countries. Among these Theodorus, the same that was distinguished among the bishops of our day under the name of Gregory, and his brother Athenodorus… Remaining with him five years, they made such progress in divine things, that although they were still young, both of them were honored with a bishopric in the churches of Pontus (Chapter XXX, The Pupils of Origen). Beryllus, whom we mentioned recently as bishop of Bostra in

Arabia, turned aside from the ecclesiastical standard


He dared to assert that our Saviour

and Lord did not pre-exist in a distinct form of being of his own before his abode among men, and that he does not possess a divinity of his own, but only that of the Father dwelling in him. There are still extant writings of Beryllus and of the synod held on his account, which contain the questions put to him by Origen, and the discussions which were carried on in his parish, as well as all the things done at that time (Chapter XXXIII, The Error of Beryllus). At this time, as the faith extended and our doctrine was proclaimed boldly before all, Origen, being, as they say, over sixty years old, and having gained great facility by his long practice, very properly permitted his public discourses to be taken down by stenographers, a thing which he had never before allowed. He also at this time composed a work of eight books in answer to that entitled True Discourse, which had been written against us by Celsus the Epicurean, and the twenty-five books on

the Gospel of Matthew

We have arranged in distinct books to the number of one

... hundred, so that they might be no longer scattered, as many of these as we have been able

to collect, which have been preserved here and there by different persons (Chapter

XXXVI, Other Works of Origen). About the same time others arose in Arabia

They said

... that during the present time the human soul dies and perishes with the body, but that at

the time of the resurrection they will be renewed together (Chapter XXXVII, The Dissension of the Arabians).


“[It took me] much trouble to fill in what was lacking in Origen”

[Conclusion of Rufinus’ version of Origen’s Commentary on Romans. And Rufinus’ boast continues, in Latin: “laborem adimplendi quae deerant… ne pulsatae quaestiones et relictae, quod in homiletico dicendi genere ab illo fieri solet, latino lectori fastidium generarent”. In Origen’s Hom. viii, § 4 in Exodum, as rendered by Rufinus, comes his fourth reference to the altered Mt 28:19 inserted in the works of Origen, as given by Rufinus in Latin: “Cum ergo uenimus ad gratiam baptismi, uniuersis aliis diis et dominis renuntiantes, Solum confitemur Deum Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum. Sed hoc confitentes, nisi toto corde diligamus Dominum Deum nostrum… non sumus effecti pars Domini… et Dominum, ad quem confugimus, propitium non efficimus, quem non ex toto et integro corde diligimus.” Why is “Dominum” alone mentioned, if just before the trine formula had stood in the original Greek? The commentary awakes this suspicion in us. “Vix certo distingui potest, ubi solus Origenes loquatur, aut ubi suas merces obtrudat Rufinus”, says De la Rue (monitum in Exodum). Thus, it is only in Rufinus’ work that the text Mt 28, 19 occurs; in three cases embedded in comment which smacks of him rather

than of Origen, while in the other two the trine formula is in no way necessitated by the context (Conybeare, F. C., Zeitschrift f. d. Neutest. Wiss. Jahrg. II, 1901, p. 285)]


Book: “Letters Of Jerome”

The books of Origen have been read before a council of bishops and unanimously condemned. The following are his chief errors, mainly found in the periArkpn (that is, “of Principles” or “of Powers”, according to Rufinus)… 2. Christ's kingdom will one day come to an end. 3. We ought to pray to the Father alone, not to the Son. I implore you to oppose them wherever they come, and to prevent them from unsettling the brethren committed to you (Letter XCII. The Synodical Letter Of [Pope] Theophilus To The Bishops Of Palestine And Of Cyprus).

Theophilus informs Jerome that he has expelled the Origenists from the monasteries of

Nitria, and urges him to shew his zeal for the faith by writing against the prevalent

heresy. The date of the letter is 400




is our desire, if possible, to guard in our

days not only the Catholic faith and the rules of the church, but the people committed to our charge, and to give a quietus to all strange doctrines (Letter LXXXVII. From Theophilus To Jerome).

By universal consent Origen himself may be expressly condemned and also the infamous heresy of which he was the author. I have learned that certain calumniators of the true faith, named Ammonius, Eusebius, and Euthymius, filled with a fresh access of enthusiasm in behalf of the heresy, have taken ship for Constantinople, to ensnare with their deceits as many new converts as they can… (Letter XC. From Theophilus To Epiphanius).

Does any one wish to praise Origen Let him praise him as I do. From his childhood he was a great man, and truly a martyr's son. At Alexandria he presided over the school of the church, succeeding a man of great learning, the presbyter Clement… He knew the scriptures by heart and laboured hard day and night to explain their meaning. He delivered in church more than a thousand sermons, and published innumerable commentaries which he called tomes…. Which of us can read all that he has written? and who can fail to mire his enthusiasm for the scriptures?… overcoming my scruples, I have taken up my pen against a man whose ability I once eulogized. I would sooner, indeed, risk my reputation… My friends have placed me in the awkward dilemma that if I say

nothing I shall be held guilty, and if I offer a defence I shall be accounted an enemy. Both

alternatives are hard; but of the two I will choose that which is the least so

I leave to

... your judgment to discover how much labour I have expended in translating the books On First Principles; for on the one hand if one alters anything from the Greek the work becomes less a version than a perversion… ( Letter LXXXIV. To Pammachius And Oceanus).

At the request of Theophilus Anastasius, bishop of Rome, writes to Simplicianus, bishop

of Milan, to inform him that he, like Theophilus, has condemned Origen whose

blasphemies have been brought under his notice

If Origen has put forth any other

... writings, you are to know that they and their author are alike condemned by me (Letter XCV. From Pope Anastasius To Simplicianus).