I am still struggling both with my eyes and painful arthritis. My physician has now prescribed a once a day fairly inexpensive pill that I have now taken for the first two days with significant relief. I'm hoping that continues. But there are encouraging fronts, nonetheless.
A Polish publisher contacted me via telephone directly from Poland. He had been trying to reach me for some time. He said he wanted to have HIDDEN DANGERS OF THE RAINBOW translated into the Polish language for circulation there and in Polish speaking regions. I happily gave my consent. He is sending the proposed contract that I will review and sign. Additionally, I have volunteered to him that I would add an updating foreword as well as an end chapter with updates. I could use that supplemental material to update Hidden Dangers' other editions (English, Dutch, Norwegian, and German). He tells me it will take approximately six months to translate and produce.
Well, I suspect this will not make Isobel Blackthorn (author of THE UNLIKELY OCCULTIST - ALICE ANN BAILEY) happy. It probably will not delight the Fetzer Institute either. Their strategy is to publish the worst of the New Age and then label it as good, right, and true. The New Age Movement is very much out there and in public view as "Meditation", "Mindfulness", and a host of new leaders and shamans. A daughter of the King of Norway is living in the United States and is dating a New Age shaman leader. The New Age Movement is far from dead. The Fetzer Institute claims that they will now succeed whereas they failed in 1982 because now a majority are SBNR (Spiritual but not religious).
I have heard recently from New Agers exiting the New Age Movement and now seeking information to help their still involved friends. I've had some wonderful telephone conversations with some. Steve Bancarz is doing an excellent job of reaching out to New Agers with his own conversion account. I'm greatly encouraged by his work and by the work of another very prominent former New Ager, Doreen Virtue. There is a great deal of discussion about Kanye West and his very public profession of his belief and faith in Jesus. Steve Bancarz believes this is a tremendous victory for God's Kingdom. I am inclined to believe in Steve's analysis. Some watchers feel and have stated otherwise; however, it is my belief that those exiting the New Age Movement and other similar circles have had their heads played with for a long time and there is often far from theological perfection while the Holy Spirit is doing His work. There is a song sung by children, "God's still working on me." Me, too!
I hope to post more frequently from now on. Please pray that God strengthens me.
Sincerely,
CONSTANCE
632 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 632 of 632Our Armstrong "friend" likes to portray that it was Martin Luther that "invented" salvation by grace, and not of works.
Slight problem. Luther and the Reformers didn't "invent" anything of the sort, because it originated in Holy Writ:
Galatians 2:16
"Knowing that a man is NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
Romans 3:20-31
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Galatians 3:5
"He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?"
Galatians 3:10
"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."
Titus 3:5-7
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Ephesians 2: 4,5
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Ephesians 2: 8-10
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Over and over and over again its the same. We are not saved BECAUSE of good works, we are saved to DO good works.
Good works is a SIGN of being saved, it is NOT to be confused with DOING good works IN ORDER to get saved! False religions and cults all have this in common; they are ALL on a "works = salvation" system. The problem is, NO ONE IS EVER "good enough" to please God by PROVING their "goodness" via their works. Man's "righteousness" on their own is nothing other than "filthy rags" in God's eyes.
Our "buddy" RayB tried to portray that Martin Luther merely popularized what is the actual Biblical Doctrine of salvation by grace, and not of works.
Slight problem. Luther and the Reformers didn't do anything of the sort, because THEIR version of Grace reflected PART BUT NOT ALL of Holy Writ:
James 2:14-26 NKJV
Faith WITHOUT Works Is DEAD
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you WANT to know, O FOOLISH MAN, that faith WITHOUT works is DEAD? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that A MAN IS JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, AND NOT BY FAITH ONLY.
25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD also!
---------------------
Martin Luther exposed the avarice, ritualistic enslavement of the common person, and some of the unbiblical dogmas of Catholicism. He stood up to a religious system that had misinterpreted and misused Scripture. It was an awakening that unleashed the Protestant Reformation.
But is the movement he inadvertently spawned that much better? Five centuries after Luther presented the Ninety-five Theses, it’s time for Protestants to examine if their teachings have degenerated into a watered-down and corrupted version of what the Bible actually teaches. Has the idea that belief is all that’s needed for salvation led many to use God’s grace as a license to sin?
How many times do Christians excuse...disregarding one of the Ten Commandments, or living a lifestyle like unbelievers with the simple argument, “I’m justified without works; I’m saved by grace; God loves me just the way I am”?
This way of thinking is nothing more than using God’s grace as a license to sin. It has serious consequences. Jesus gives this warning in the Sermon on the Mount:
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” (Matthew 7:21-23).
---------------------
Always use ALL of the Holy Bible's verses on a topic to verify a purportedly authentic Christian Doctrine and NOT just SOME if you want to find the TRUTH!
---------------------
Overlooked Skill: CRITICAL THINKING
Anonymous 12:10 AM,
Define which "works" you consider to be necessary for "justification".
1) Tithing? Yes or no
2) Going to church on Saturday instead of Sunday? Yes or no
3) Keeping the ancient Israelite holy days? Yes or no
Do you put these things above simply putting into practice that "love is active" and simply being a lamp to show the world what a Christian is?
US Plotted To Assassinate Julian Assange, WikiLeaks Attorney Tell London Court
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/us-plotted-kidnap-or-kill-julian-assange-wikileaks-attorney-tells-london-court
Ron Paul Blasts Trump's Betrayal Of Julian Assange
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/ron-paul-trumps-betrayal-julian-assange
Gog and Magog -- Future or Historical? Could most Christians of today be that massively deceived?
Who are or were Gog and Magog? Do we really know?
Gog and Magog in History
http://soundchristian.com/magog/
GOG, MAGOG, KHAZARS, AND DENIAL
The Completed Invasion of Canaan
https://freedomfromdelusion.blogspot.com/2015/09/gog-magog-khazars-denial.html
"It will be shown that the influx of what we now know to be Jews of Khazarian origin constituted the first "invasion" of Gog from the land of Magog, as prophesied in Biblical scripture. The fascinating aspect of it is that, as with virtually all other prophecies, those claiming theological pre-eminence in their knowledge of Scripture completely missed the fulfilment -- just as did the Jews at the first coming of the Messiah."
Could that really be true?
Further the author says:
"Much in harmony with Biblical prophetic terminology, Koestler writes that the Persians and the Byzantines referred to Khazaria as the "Kingdom of the North" with whom nearly all modern theologians connect Gog and Magog.
References made by Rabbi Petakhiah in his travelogue Sibbuv ha-Olam, concerning the conversion of King Bulan to Judaism, makes mention that the kingdom was known as ancient Meshech.
It is my opinion (just a thought) that God will make provisions for all these secrets to be revealed in the near future: the true nature of the faux-Israeli Jews; and the identification of the so-called lost tribes of Israel. All this information is currently available in various books and documents – it is amazing the number of instances I have stumbled upon this information in various forms. It is apparent the average person has no clue but scholars, historians, Bible teachers, preachers, and Christian book writers should know the truth but fail to include it in their works and writings. There is a number of high level internet sites and bloggers such as Tom Horn, Steve Quayle, David Bay, Dave Hodges, Terry James, and many others who never mention the words: Jew; Khazar; Edomite; and others. They continue to preach the Church will be raptured prior to the “tribulation” and the current nation of Israel will repent and turn to Jesus as the world returns to the stone-age by the wrath of God."
Don't immediately believe or disbelieve it. Check it out.
Covid-19, just some unfortunate accidentally released man made virus????
From Wikipedia:
The People's Republic of China and it's predecessors have a history of female infanticide spanning 2000 years
During the 19th century the practice was widespread. Reading from ancient texts show a prevalence of the term ni hi (to drown girls), and drowning was the most common method used to kill female children. Other methods used were suffocation. Exposure to the elements was another method: the child would be placed in a basket which was then placed in a tree. In 1845 in the province of Jiangxi, a missionary wrote that these children survived for up to two days while exposed to the elements, and that those passing by would ignore the screaming child.
According to the Geneva Center for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF), the demographic shortfall of female babies who have died for gender related issues is in the same range as the 191 million estimated dead accounting for all conflicts in the twentieth century. In 2012, the documentary It's a Girl: The Three Deadliest Words in the World was released. It focused on female infanticide in India and China
It's said that those least at risk from Covid-19 are children. It's interesting that death comes from extreme respiratory distress! Which is kind of like drowning in fluids, and suffocation!
Seems God is now judging the Earth. Will we in this 'christian nation' the USA escape this judgement? I think not. Those sepents who call themselves democrats demand that babies who survive abortion are left to die of exposure. Seems we are guilty of infanticide ourselves.
Also, the stock market is going to eventually crash hard! The global economy is much worse than the 'great economy' that is proclaimed by the lying liars. Perhaps the biggest reason we see for abortion/infanticide are economic, and self indulgence. God's judgement has finally arrived, and is always measured out perfectly! Pray, and prepare accordingly!
Our Armstrong "friend" talks incessantly about "works" that are NECESSARY to earn salvation (the Roman Catholic Church holds to the exact same position, BTW).
WHAT ABOUT THE "WORKS" of FOUNDER HERBERT W. ARMSTRONG???
He/she just simply ignores the FACT that the founder/inventor of the "religion" that he/she steadfastly follows, and, PROMOTES constantly, was a PERVERT, and SEXUAL DEVIANT of the highest order!
Herbert W. Armstrong was a SERIAL RAPIST of HIS OWN DAUGHTER.
This incredibly sick, evil, con artist of the highest order raped his own daughter for a period of over 10 years !
Armstrong's "wife" and "mother" of the victim ALSO KNEW about the "relationship" for over 10 years, and did absolutely nothing about it. Try to even imagine how sick these people were.
Not only that, Armstrong wanted the "relationship" to continue even after she got married.
YET, our "friend" continues to post Armstrong propaganda ... and has even posted entire PDF Books written by none other than the Head Pervert Himself.
Do you folks remember the Jim Jones Cult? He was a perverted sexual deviant as well. Can you now see how his "followers" all drank the KoolAid ?
By the way, the Doctrines of Grace DID NOT originate with the Reformers.
This doctrine can be found in many of the early church fathers' writings, including Augustine (4th. Century).
Also, our Armstrong "friend" continues to post the LIE that I am a "follower" of Martin Luther. I am NOT. I have always been a voracious reader, and of the hundreds of books I have read in my lifetime, I have only read ONE SINGLE book by Martin Luther;
"The Bondage of the Will."
That hardly makes me a "follower" of Martin Luther!
But hey, "friend," don't let the truth get in the way of your theories.
Notice how our buddy RayB
DOESN'T scripturally rebut what I replied in response to his post?
Just ATTACKS as usual as a SUBSTITUTE for being unable to do so = DEFLECTS! And BTW it doesn't matter WHO first promoted the PERVERTED, counterfeit version of the BIBLICAL version of the Doctrine of Grace, it's WRONG. But RayB is FAR more concerned with WHO wrote something than HOW BIBLICALLY ACCURATE is it!
Oh, and he's not a 'follower' of Martin Luther, just a PRAISER of Martin Luther.
Well excuuuuuuse ME!
LOL
Anon @ 2:50 PM, you wrote:
To be clearer than my previous statement to you: this general area [examining the possibility of the personhood of the Spirit/paraklētos] is not something that I am going be pursuing right now.
However I will say here as regards to your point "the Spirit’s role includes teaching and reminding (14:26), testifying about Jesus (15:26), guiding into all truth (16:13), and informing (16:14-15). Doesn’t all this imply the personhood of the Spirit?" that I believe the Holy Spirit to be a portion of God's (The Father's / The Son's) mind(s) in semi-direct contact with His followers "teaching and reminding (14:26), testifying about Jesus (15:26), guiding into all truth (16:13), and informing (16:14-15)".
If you are not going to pursue this enquiry, then I must ask why you continue to post links from the UCG that ‘debunk’ the Trinity or promote your Binitarian stance (e.g. your @ 7:52 PM comment above in your response to RayB). Seems a bit hypocritical, does it not? You’ve been posting links and info about your particular theology for a while now, and criticizing others who’ve not challenged your doctrines but instead Armstrong’s character (I don’t disagree on this point), yet when I challenge one doctrine in particular you defer until later? I have to wonder if it because you cannot offer rebuttal.
My final statement Doesn’t all this imply the personhood of the Spirit? applied to the entire paragraph. Let me lay out the evidence:
- Jesus implicitly calls Himself a paraklētos in the Upper Room discourse when He states He will ask the Father to send “another paraklētos”. This means Jesus was a paraklētos during His earthly ministry. Was Jesus a ‘person’ in this role? That’s rhetorical, of course; but, why wouldn’t this personhood apply to the Spirit/paraklētos as well?
- Jesus wants to send the paraklētos (Holy Spirit) so that His disciples will not be “as orphans” when Jesus leaves. This implies Jesus performed some sort of parental role. Can someone have a ‘parent’, or some ‘person’ acting in a parental role—which is what it means to not be an orphan—identified as “a portion of God's (The Father's / The Son's) mind(s)”, i.e., not a whole ‘person’?
- Jesus is currently a paraklētos, according to 1 John 2:1. We, of course, do not think Jesus’ personhood was reduced post-Glorification; so, why would we think the Holy Spirit as paraklētos would be any less a ‘person’ than Jesus—especially given Jesus’ words that He’d send “another paraklētos”?
----
But Matthew 28:19 is the other important unresolved issue. Whether you ultimately decide to reject or accept the Matthew 28:19 text as found in any (legitimate) Bible, you must still concede that the UCG affirms it while providing a syntactically problematic exegesis of the passage.
Anonymous/Armstronger posted @ 11:52 AM (in part):
"Notice how our buddy RayB
DOESN'T scripturally rebut what I replied in response to his post? "
"Just ATTACKS as usual as a SUBSTITUTE for being unable to do so = DEFLECTS! And BTW it doesn't matter WHO first promoted the PERVERTED, counterfeit version of the BIBLICAL version of the Doctrine of Grace, it's WRONG."
NOTE: somehow, our Armstrong "friend" neglected to read the following posts dealing specifically with the Biblical doctrine of GRACE. I'm sure it was an "honest" mistake.
Galatians 2:16
"Knowing that a man is NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
Romans 3:20-31
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Galatians 3:5
"He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?"
Galatians 3:10
"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."
And ... just a few more verses that declare the Biblical doctrine of GRACE. Many, many more are available upon request:
Titus 3:5-7
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
Ephesians 2: 4,5
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Ephesians 2: 8-10
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
RayB @ 12:58 PM - 1:00 PM said...
Anonymous/Armstronger posted @ 11:52 AM (in part):
"Notice how our buddy RayB
DOESN'T scripturally rebut what I replied in response to his post? "
"Just ATTACKS as usual as a SUBSTITUTE for being unable to do so = DEFLECTS! And BTW it doesn't matter WHO first promoted the PERVERTED, counterfeit version of the BIBLICAL version of the Doctrine of Grace, it's WRONG."
NOTE: somehow, our Armstrong "friend" neglected to read the following posts dealing specifically with the Biblical doctrine of GRACE. I'm sure it was an "honest" mistake.
•Reply: Somehow, our "buddy" RayB neglected to notice that his "posts dealing specifically with the Biblical doctrine of Grace" WERE WHAT I HAD ALREADY REPLIED TO AFTERWARDS AND TO WHAT I REFERRED TO WHEN I SAID THAT HE DIDN'T "scripturally rebut what I replied in response to his post!
I'm sure it was an "honest" mistake...
LOL!
Anonymous 8:05 AM said...
Anonymous 12:10 AM,
Define which "works" you consider to be necessary for "justification".
1) Tithing? Yes or no
•Reply: I will simply quote Jesus Christ HIMSELF here: "The more important aspects of the law (are) justice, mercy, and faith. You should tithe, yes, but do not neglect the more important things."
---------------------
2) Going to church on Saturday instead of Sunday? Yes or no
•Reply: On the day GOD says to go: YES.
God's Sabbath
---------------------
3) Keeping the ancient Israelite holy days? Yes or no
•Reply: No such thing.
But as far as keeping GOD'S annual Holy Days: YES.
God's Holy Days
---------------------
Do you put these things above simply putting into practice that "love is active" and simply being a lamp to show the world what a Christian is?
•Reply: The question is erroneously framed: It implies that outward acts of love constitute the sum and whole of what a Christian is. Outward acts of love ARE crucial to being a Christian, no question, but there are MULTITUDES of NON-Christians who regularly engage in outward acts of love. What then those things are that DISTINGUISH between those professing Christianity and Non-Christians to IDENTIFY actual Christians is what the Bible says it is.
What does the >BIBLE< say about the NEW Testament Body Of Believers?
"THE SAINTS...ARE THOSE THAT >KEEP< THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD"
Revelation 14:12
WHICH?
INCLUDING THE TEN COMMANDMENTS!
Jesus gave specific reference to examples of them to show what commandments he was referring to when he was responding to a question of CRUCIAL importance:
"Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, Good Teacher, what shall I do to INHERIT eternal life?'"
"You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’ ”
Luke 18:18+20
https://biblehub.com/luke/18-18.htm
https://biblehub.com/luke/18-20.htm
Clear as a bell!
KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS
(Correction)
What then it is that DISTINGUISHES between those professing Christianity and Non-Christians to IDENTIFY actual Christians is what the Bible says it is.
Hi Craig!
Sorry, I didn't mean to give that impression. As you yourself noted:
"The thing is, though, online discourse is tough enough: tone is hard to read, words are miscommunicated by the writer, words are misconstrued by a reader, etc. This is especially true when dealing with more delicate topics."
I am responding now at your prompting but the reason I had said what I said is because it was my perception (and I was quite correct and I've just gotten started[!]) that this would entail an exceptionally great amount of time-consuming research that I felt obligated to do (because I need to know, whether it was you that brought it up or someone/someplace else) but therefore at some point later. (Not that I've finished with this research now, not by a longshot. This was just a start so as to reply to you now.) And English is tough enough (witness previous paragraph) without tossing ancient Greek into it! And no offense, Craig, because I have a good deal of respect for you, but I can't just simply take your word for it that a particular word (or passage, etc.) in ancient Greek means exactly what you say it means. For example: YOU say Buzzard, etc. got their Greek wrong. THEY think they got it right! Who's to say someone wouldn't say YOU were the one wrong about those things (or about something else similar) even though you believe (I'm sure) that you're right? See my point?
And to your other point: The points in favor of a Binity are quite great (a few examples below) so I've had no problem sharing links about them. And I absolutely did not want you just leave you 'hanging' on my reply after I was a bit horrified to learn earlier that you had been waiting on a response about your post near the end of the previous thread (even though you hadn't specifically addressed a question to me). However I don't want you and I to become like (no offense) but you (&/or) J (&/or) Susanna with regular voluminous back & forths back & forths back & forths ad infinitum tying up the Blog so I'm putting a long response here now but I really don't want to have THAT occur. Again: NO offense.
---------------------
"And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and disciple all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you."
Matthew 28:19
The Trinitarian Claim
Trinitarians claim that Matthew 28:19 is identifying the three persons of their Triune God. This claim is often made by making a further claim that the word "name" in the singular means that we are to understand these three are one, that is, the one Triune God who has one name.
Examination of the Claim
...
3. The Greek word for "name" is singular not plural
The Greek word for "name" in this passage is singular and not plural. It does not say, "into the names of," but "into the name of." Because it is singular, the Trinitarian argues that it must refer to one. This is absolutely correct. However they also claim that because three persons follow, it also therefore follows that the one thing to which this word refers is one identity which is therefore the one Trinity of three persons, that is, one "God." This is totally incorrect.
Here Jesus commands his disciples to baptize "in the name of." In the ancient Jewish world, to do something in someone's name meant to do something under another person's authority, character, reputation, plan and purpose. It implies the idea that a subject of that authority is doing the authority's will for that authority. For example, the phrase "Stop in the name of the Monarchy" does not refer to the King's personal name, his surname nor the King and Queen's personal or surnames together. It refers to the plan and purpose and law of the Monarchy as established by their authority. And now we shall see this is exactly how the term is used at Matthew 28:19. In verse 18, Jesus declares, "all authority in heaven and earth is given to me." He then says, "therefore go." It is a basic tenet of hermeneutics that when one sees the word "therefore" one asks what the word "therefore" is there for. Jesus is expressing a cause and effect statement. Because he has been given all authority, the disciples are therefore to go out and baptize all nations "in the name of." As Jesus says in the Gospel of John, "As the Father sent me, now I also send you. Receive the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22). In other words, Jesus has been given the authority to have them do things in the name of his Father, who gave him that authority by the Holy Spirit in his resurrection, with the goal of bringing all nations into subjection to the authority of God. The authority of the Father is given to the Son in the Holy Spirit in which he rose from the dead in the very same way Jesus gives his apostles authority. This is why Peter says in reference to Jesus' resurrection, "God has made this Jesus.... 'Lord.'" The word 'Lord' is a word which indicates authority and Jesus was made Lord in his resurrection. This is the same idea as Matthew 28:18, "all authority... is given to me."
It really isn't difficult to demonstrate that Trinitarians are in error concerning their claim concerning the reason "name" is singular. For example:
τὸ ὄνομα τῶν πατέρων μου Αβρααμ καὶ Ισαακ
the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac (Genesis 48:16)
Notice that "name" is not singular because Abraham and Isaac are the same one identity. It is singular to denote the same one reputation and character of Abraham and Isaac. Notice also the following verse:
For whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the son of man will be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of him and of the Father and of the holy angels.
Is the word "glory" in singular form because the Son, the Father, and the holy angels are one being, one identity, or one God? Such a claim would be ridiculous. Yet it does not stop Trinitarians from making such a claim at Matthew 28:19 when we have the same kind of grammar.
Analysis of the Evidence
1. The Flow of the Immediate Context
Now let us notice something very carefully here. Jesus first says all authority is given to "me." He then says to go and baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Why would he indicate he himself had been given all authority and then name three into which to baptize all nations instead of himself? This does not even work in the Trinitarian mindset because Jesus is only one of those three persons in Trinitarian dogma. Indeed, when we come to the book of Acts, we find that they baptized simply into the name of Jesus. And then he says the disciples are to remember to observe everything "he" Jesus has commanded them and that "he" would be with them to the end of the age. Carefully regard this singularity. If the Trinitarian mindset and flow of thought really made any sense, it should follow that since all authority had been given to Jesus then the disciples should baptize in the name of Jesus and be careful to observe everything Jesus had commanded them and that Jesus would be with them to the end of the age. But this is not what it says. The question is "why?"
2. Baptism Confusion
Trinitarians are often very confused by the fact that here the disciples are commanded to baptize in the name of "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," but when these Trinitarians come to the book of Acts, they see that every single occurrence of baptism illustrates the disciples baptized "in the name of Jesus." The very fact that Trinitarians are confused about this situation betrays their complete lack of understanding and their corresponding misinterpretation of this passage, not to mention the significance of the resurrection of Jesus with respect to his authority. Trinitarians often suppose Jesus is giving his apostles a "baptism formula," that is he is telling them what to say when they baptized people. But if we understand Jesus properly, the reader of the Bible is left completely without any such confusion when he comes to those passages in Acts which describe people being baptized "in the name of Jesus." In fact, Peter tells us that there is no other name by which we can be saved but the name of Jesus. And indeed, Jesus said all authority had been given to him so one would expect that baptism would be into his name if by the word "name" he meant what you were supposed to say when you baptized someone. But that is not what he meant. Jesus was not giving the disciples some words to say when they baptized the nations. Let us now demonstrate what is really being said in Matthew 28:19.
What Jesus was saying in Matthew 28:18 is that the Father has given him, the Son, all authority. We must ask how that occurred. This authority is administered by the Holy Spirit in the disciples who baptize all nations. The reason Father, Son, are mentioned together here is because we have just been told all authority has been given by the Father to the Son. The reason Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned altogether is because this authority given to Jesus is administered by his servants via the Holy Spirit. There is absolutely no reason to suppose we have a three person God on our hands.
So when we come to the book of Acts and see them baptize in the name of Jesus we should not see this as contradicting Jesus' instructions in Matthew. Baptizing them in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was not something they were suppposed to say out loud when they were baptizing. Jesus was explaining on what terms they would be doing this baptizing. Since Jesus had been given all authority he would now send out these disciples in HIS name because HE had been given that authority by the Father. And Jesus sent them out by filling them with the Holy Spirit (John 20:22).
Conclusion
To try and claim this passage indicates that that all men should be baptized into a three person God ignores the facts for the sake of imagination. To insist that "name" here is a term used to indicate that "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" are one God due to the grammatically singular word "name" is an hermeneutic violation of the immediate context ignoring the fact that all (singular) authority had been given to Jesus alone. The one concept which the name is pertaining to, is not the identity of a Triune God, but the one authority of God the Father through God's Son in God's Holy Spirit. The disciples are to do these things in the name of the authority of the Father, given to the Son, by the Holy Spirit. And this is why Jesus commanded his disciples to do nothing until they had received the Holy Spirit from on high (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4-5,8; 2:33,36). The interpretation presented here is demanded not only by the ancient concept of "name" but the force of the immediate context and the consistent testimony of the Scriptures. We don't need to understand the nature and signficance of the resurrection to simply see that Jesus tells us plainly what he means by "the name of" when he says, "all authority... is given to me. Go therefore and baptize all nations the name of. As such, the word "name" is not a reference to one identity, but to one plan and purpose of authority.
---------------------
Jesus told His followers that the Holy Spirit, which the Father would send, “will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you” (John 14:26). It is through God’s Spirit within us that we gain spiritual insight and understanding. Indeed, we come to receive the very “mind of CHRIST” (1 Corinthians 2:16)—ALSO referred to as the “mind of the Spirit” (Romans 8:27).
...
In Matthew 1:20 we find further proof that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct entity, but God’s divine power. Here we read that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. However, Jesus continually prayed to and addressed God the Father as His Father and not the Holy Spirit (Matthew 10:32-33; Matthew 11:25-27; Matthew 12:50). He never represented the Holy Spirit as His Father! Clearly, the Holy Spirit was the agency or power through which the Father begot Jesus as His Son—not a separate person or being altogether.
...
Now returned to the spirit realm, Jesus wields the omnipotent power of the Holy Spirit along with the Father. The Holy Spirit, we should understand, is not only the Spirit of God the Father, for the Bible also calls it the “Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9; Philippians 1:19). By either designation, it is the same Spirit, as there is only one Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:4).
...
Is The Holy Spirit A Person?
---------------------
JESUS Is Our Advocate (Parakletos)
---------------------
Does Matthew 28 verse 19 Prove the Trinity?
Remember the important principle that the Bible interprets the Bible. What this particular passage shows us is that the process of baptism and entering God’s family involves the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is not a description of the nature of God.
Notice Acts 2:38: “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” After real repentance and being baptized, the example from Scripture is that a minister lays his hands on the repentant person and he or she receives the Holy Spirit directly from God (Acts 8:14-17).
Important as it is, baptism alone is not sufficient. We must receive God’s Holy Spirit—the seed of eternal life—which is imparted by the biblically mandated laying on of hands of one of God’s ministers (Acts 19:1-6). We cannot partake of God’s nature, as mentioned in 2 Peter 1:4, without first being begotten of the Father by the Holy Spirit, which imparts that divine nature.
Why are Father, Son and Holy Spirit mentioned in Matthew 28:19? Let us understand. At baptism we enter into a covenant relationship with God the Father. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, makes that covenant relationship possible. (Of course, through our repentance and baptism we also enter into a relationship with Jesus Christ as our older Brother and head of the Church.) The Holy Spirit is the means by which the Father and Son make all of this possible.
On another level, God the Father is the One who calls us to baptism and a new way of life (John 6:44, John 6:65), and it is His goodness that leads us to repentance and baptism (Romans 2:4). We know also that Jesus Christ died as a sacrifice for our sins, reconciling us to God (Romans 5:6-11)—baptism picturing our burial with Jesus Christ and our being raised to a new life with Him both now and in the future resurrection (Romans 6:1-5). And God’s Holy Spirit, as we will see more in a later chapter, is what makes us God’s begotten children (Romans 8:16).
The instruction in Matthew 28:19 presumes that, before being baptized, believers will learn of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. At baptism, these believers enter into a personal family relationship with God the Father and the Son through the Holy Spirit, thereby receiving the name of God (compare Ephesians 3:14-15).
Note again that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all acknowledged as being involved in this process. But that does not mean all three are divine persons in a Trinity. To claim that Matthew 28:19 establishes one God in three persons goes far beyond the actual words of the verse. And other verses show such a notion to be utterly false.
---------------------
✓1 John 1:3 describes our fellowship with the Father and the Son.
WHERE is the Holy Spirit?
✓Matthew 11:27: “All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”
HOW could a coequal person of the Godhead be LEFT OUT?
✓The Holy Spirit is CONSISTENTLY LEFT OUT of greetings in Paul’s epistles, such as in Romans 1:7: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Wouldn’t this be an AFFRONT if the Holy Spirit were a coequal third “Person” of the Godhead?
---------------------
In contrast to God the Father and Jesus Christ, who are consistently compared to human beings in Their form and shape, the Holy Spirit is consistently represented, by various symbols and manifestations, in a completely different manner—such as wind (Acts 2:2), fire (Acts 2:3), water (John 4:14; John 7:37-39), oil (Psalms 45:7; compare Acts 10:38; Matthew 25:1-10), a dove (Matthew 3:16) and an “earnest,” or down payment, on eternal life (2 Corinthians 1:22; 2 Corinthians 5:5; Ephesians 1:13-14, KJV). These depictions are difficult to understand, to say the least, if the Holy Spirit is a person.
In Matthew 1:20 we find further evidence that the Holy Spirit is not a distinct entity, but God’s divine power. Here we read that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. However, Jesus continually prayed to and addressed God the Father as His Father and NOT the Holy Spirit (Matthew 10:32-33; Matthew 11:25-27; Matthew 12:50). He NEVER represented the Holy Spirit as His Father. CLEARLY, the Holy Spirit was the agency or power through which the Father begot Jesus as His Son.
Paul’s example and teaching
If God were a Trinity, surely Paul, who recorded much of the theological underpinnings of the early Church, would have comprehended and taught this concept. Yet we find no such teaching in His writings.
Moreover, Paul’s standard greeting in his letter to the churches, as well as individuals to whom he wrote, is “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet in each of his greetings he never mentions the Holy Spirit. (The same can also be said of Peter in the salutations of both his epistles.)
The same greeting, with only minor variations, appears in every epistle that bears Paul’s name (see Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2; etc.) The Holy Spirit is always left out of these greetings—an unbelievable and inexplicable oversight if the Spirit were indeed a person or entity coequal with God the Father and Christ.
...
The Holy Spirit Is Not A Person
Who are you trying so hard to convince 8:25 PM? Yourself?
You're all too correct 9:30 PM, just between us, I've had a major crisis of conscience since viewing THIS!
Anon 8:17-8:25 PM,
I don’t have the time at this moment to offer a point-by-point rebuttal to your lengthy posts, but very quickly I note that Genesis 48:16 (LXX) and Luke 9:26 are NOT syntactically parallel either to each other or to Matthew 28:19. That is, they are not proper comparisons, for all three have different syntax. When I DO have the required amount of time—to do most of it—I will explain Matthew 28:19’s syntax and illustrate why the other two are not the same.
But, I’m flat out not going to read through FIVE external links in order to provide my response. I limited my rebuttal to you centering on one Scripture (Matthew 28:19) and one section of Scripture (the Upper Room Discourse) as it pertained to the Holy Spirit as paraklētos as compared to Jesus as paraklētos.
Anon 8:17-8:25 PM,
Sorry for my delay. This was a good deal more involved than I initially thought, and I wanted to be sure I presented this to the best of my knowledge and ability. With no further ado, let me compare the three verses:
In Matthew 28:19 the main verb is the imperative/command (“Go and…”) “make-disciples”. This ‘making disciples’ entails baptizing them “in[to] the…” singular “…’name’” of that which follows. Here “name” is prefaced with the Greek article (to below), making it unique and specific.
What follows “in[to] the name” are three ‘entities’ [in the genitive case] each one prefaced by the Greek article (tou), with the 2nd and 3rd ‘entities’ placed in parallel with the 1st by the use of the conjunction “and” (kai):
eis to onoma tou patros kai tou huiou kai tou agiou pneumatos
“in[to] the name of-the Father and of-the Son and of-the Holy Spirit.”
The article in front of each ‘entity’ indicates each one is distinct. Thus, we have three distinct ‘entities’ in a parallel syntactical structure, implying each one has the same and equal weight in the singular “name”. In other words, all three have the singular “name”, yet all three are distinct, with none having any more or less “name” than any other: one “name” in a collective of three.
Whatever one wants to make of this theologically (and I’ll come back to this), the three ‘entities’ are in solidarity and in parallel. This means the Holy Spirit cannot be a portion of God's (The Father's / The Son's) mind(s), or some ‘force’, since either of these interpretations would destroy the parallelism of and solidarity with the Father and Son in this context.
Now let’s compare with the two examples provided in your first link (http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/verses/Mt28_19.html). First, Genesis 48:16 (LXX)—the basic syntactical structure is the same in the Hebrew Masoretic Text. I’ll transliterate the Greek to simplify:
τὸ ὄνομα τῶν πατέρων μου Αβρααμ καὶ Ισαακ
to onoma tōn paterōn mou Abraam kai Isaak
“the name of-the fathers of-my Abraham and Isaac”
“the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac”
In the Greek, while “name” is singular, “fathers” is plural. In viewing the context, “name” is not the same as the usage in Matt 28:19, for here in Genesis it is speaking of lineage, and, hence, “name” as in family name. More importantly, the syntax here is singular--plural--two persons, as opposed to Matt 28:19, which is singular--three ‘entities’. The intervening plural “fathers” is the important syntactic difference. Here in Gen 48:16 there is a plurality of persons—two: Abraham and Isaac—sharing one familial name, but each one having this same name individually, in a distributive sense (as opposed to collective). Abraham has the name individually, and Isaac has the name individually.
[cont.]
[continuing]
A similar syntactical structure is found just ten verses earlier in Gen 48:6:
“they shall be called” epi tō onomati tōn adelphōn autōn
“they shall be called by[/on] the name of-the brothers of-them”
“they shall be called by the name [singular] of their brothers [plural]”
If you look at English translations of both Gen 48:6 and 48:16 you’ll see them split between using the singular “name” and the plural “names”. This illustrates the difficulty in translating from one language to another in which each has different rules. Thus, the root of the problem in the analysis at the above link is that the author is imposing English translation and rules back onto the Greek without fully investigating and taking into account the original Greek and its different rules. This—arguing from English translation instead of the original Greek—unfortunately, is a VERY common problem I find in both non-orthodox Christian interpretations of the Scriptures AND Christian [over-]interpretations of Scripture.
Now, had Matthew 28:19 been written similar to Gen 48:16 (in the name of [my] fathers…), such as “in the name of-the persons (ta prosōpa)…”, then tritheism (three gods), or modalism, would have obtained. It would have signified three separate persons, each with the “name” individually.
Now on to Luke 9:26:
“…when He comes en tē doxē autou kai tou patros kai tōn agiōn aggelōn.”
“…when He comes in the glory of-Him and of-the Father and of-the holy angels/messengers.”
“…when He comes in His glory and [in the glory] of the Father and of the holy angels/messengers.”
This is syntactically more similar to Matt 28:19 than I originally thought. There is one “glory” but two persons and one group. The PP “in the glory” governs the rest, but I think it possible that the ‘personal’ pronoun autou can be included with “in the glory” (the combined “in the glory of-Him” = “in His glory”) in order to include this with tou patros and tōn agiōn aggelōn such that it might be rendered “in His glory and His Father’s (glory) and His holy messengers’ (glory)”. While I’m not sure if this is feasible (using “His” with the “the Father” and “the holy messengers”), such a rendering would better harmonize this verse with its Synoptic parallels (Matt 16:27 and Mark 8:38 [“His Father’s glory”]; cf. Mark 13:27 [“His holy messengers”]).
In any case, there is one “glory” here among the collective three in Luke 9:26. In this sense it is similar to Matt 28:19. That said, the third portion of the section titled Examination of the Claim at the link you provided uses some straw man arguments that are extrapolations from faulty Trinitarian arguments. It would not be very helpful to try to unravel these.
[cont]
[continuing]
But I will address the following under the 2nd section (titled Questionable Authenticity), in which the author goes in order of Matthew 28:18, 19, and then 20:
- All authority is give [sic] to ONE
- Baptize in the name of THREE
- Teach them to observe all the ONE has commanded
No; it’s “baptize in the ONE” ‘name’. Now, there are those who would see this as a baptismal formula, a formula incongruent with the practice of in Jesus’ name in Acts. Yet this is not necessarily so. This one ‘name’ of three indicates that any one of the three possesses the ‘name’. This is not unlike the “glory” in Luke 9:26 among the three as compared to the sole “His Father’s glory” in the Synoptic parallel passage of Mark 8:38. In other words, would we think Mark’s use of the sole “His Father’s glory” in Mark 8:38 is incongruent with the “glory” of the collective three in Luke 9:26 to the extent that “His Father’s glory” in Mark 8:38 indicates that the Father has all the glory, while 9:26 indicates that the Father has it in some diminished sense because it is now shared with the Son and the holy messengers in the Lukan passage? Of course we wouldn’t. The same applies to Matt 28:19 and the usage in Acts (“in Jesus’ name”).
In any case, I don’t think Matt 28:19 is intended to be either a formula for baptism or a reference to the Divine Name. As to the former, my position is that we should view this as bringing the new disciple into fellowship with or acknowledging the Lordship of the three. As to the latter, there doesn’t appear to be anything contextually pointing to the Divine Name in this passage. That said, the unity of the three in ‘name’ indicates a tri-unity, thereby pointing to the triune nature of the Christian ‘Godhead’ (not a term I like, but I cannot find another more appropriate at the moment). Let me quote from Grant Osborne’s commentary on Matthew in the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the Greek New Testament Series (Matthew, Volume 1 [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010], p 1081):
…Most doubt the Trinitarian emphasis because of the absence of any such theology in Matthew. For instance, Luz says, “Of course, the triadic baptismal command does not yet imply the much later dogma of the Trinity, although later it was thusly interpreted.” Certainly this is not the Nicene Creed, but there is a Trinitarian theology in the NT, seen in 1 Cor 12:4 – 6; 2 Cor 13:14; Eph 4:4 – 6; 2 Thess 2:13 – 14; 1 Pet 1:2; Jude 20 – 21; Rev 1:4 – 5; and this is in line with early beliefs in the deity of each member of the Godhead, the personhood of each member, and the fact that there is one God. We must speak of at least an incipient Trinitarian theology, and that this passage states that conversion and baptism bring us into a unity and community with that threefold Godhead.
Amen!
Are you still on the radio or do you have a podcast? I will be praying for you. I hope you get better soon. For your Arthritis try MSM-(Methylsulfonylmethane) and high doses of Vitamin C. Fish oil is also good. God bless.
moncler
adidas yeezy
off white jordan 1
supreme
yeezy
curry 7
air jordans
yeezy
supreme hoodie
birkin bag
moncler outlet
yeezy 700
longchamp bags
jordan 12
supreme clothing
kobe 11
yeezys
supreme clothing
kyrie 6 shoes
yeezy
My husband and I have been married for about 7 years now. We were happily married with two kids, a boy and a girl. 3 months ago, I started to notice some strange behavior from him and a few weeks later I found out that my husband is seeing someone. He started coming home late from work, he hardly cared about me or the kids anymore, Sometimes he goes out and doesn't even come back home for about 2-3 days. I did all I could to rectify this problem but all to no avail. I became very worried and needed help. As I was browsing through the Internet one day, I came across a website that suggested that Dr Osita can help solve marital problems, restore broken relationships and so on. So, I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and he did a spell for me. Two days later, my husband came to me and apologized for the wrongs he did and promised never to do it again. Ever since then, everything has returned back to normal. My family and I are living together happily again.. All thanks to Dr Osita. If you need a spell caster that can cast a spell that truly works, I suggest you contact him. He will not disappoint you. This is his Email: (drositamiraclespell@gmail.com) or WhatsApp him (+15088120454) web.site: http://drositamiraclespell.website2.me
Post a Comment