THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

Madman

Senior Member
Are God's People, while in the flesh, guided to spiritual growth?
How much doctrine is questioned, or discussed, among the saints in Eternity?
Do doctrinal questions become more important or less important as we grow in faith?
Faith … a good word.
We have been given a "reasonable faith" and we need to find a way and the words to describe it. The human mind desires to connect the dots.

1gr8bldr is correct, many of these doctrines were not fleshed out in the beginning because the discussion had not started and the church was world wide with many different languages, that made it even more difficult to find the proper words.

The tradition had been passed down but we needed the explanation. One way we know this is that the Epistles were written before the Gospels.
 
We have been given a "reasonable faith" and we need to find a way and the words to describe it. The human mind desires to connect the dots.

1gr8bldr is correct, many of these doctrines were not fleshed out in the beginning because the discussion had not started and the church was world wide with many different languages, that made it even more difficult to find the proper words.

The tradition had been passed down but we needed the explanation. One way we know this is that the Epistles were written before the Gospels.
It's interesting that in many ways God was new through Jesus Christ yet having always been. True that coming to the earth as a human was new but even that was foretold.

Yet Paul had a new revelation about the mystery/secret that had to be told. It was a lot for everyone to adjust to and learn. Foretold but finally revealed. It was a lot to absorb.

I guess one part of the argument is exactly how much of this learning process was needed or required vs inquiring minds just wanting to know?
I have a quest for knowledge while others are OK with just the basics.
Perhaps the Holy Spirit reveals some knowledge and God has some revealed through men such as Paul. Especially in the early Church as they were trying to put it all together.

In a way you would think that they should have already known but in reality, they didn't.
 

Madman

Senior Member
Yet Paul had a new revelation about the mystery/secret that had to be told.
I'd be interested to here about that.

In a way you would think that they should have already known but in reality, they didn't.
I believe the idea that "just me and my Bible is all I need" can get us into trouble today. They didn't understand it and they lived it.

Acts 8:
30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.


31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

Romans 10:
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?


Forgot this one:

Luke 24:
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.


Just remembered this one:

2 Peter 3:16
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
 
Last edited:
I'd be interested to here about that.
There was a certain mystery/secret about how the Gospel could now be presented to the world. It was revealed to Paul and Paul was also chosen to deliver this message.

Thus the debate on one's effectual calling. If the Holy Spirit can deliver this message, then why is man needed? Is one's salvation dependent on man? Was this Paul's revelation? That man was needed to deliver the message to the world?

The mystery?
Ephesians 3:6
This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are fellow heirs, fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 6:19
Pray also for me, that whenever I speak, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel,

The "revelation" of the mystery;
Ephesians 3:3
that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly.

Romans 16:25
Now to him who is able to establish you in accordance with my gospel, the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,

The mystery continues;
Ephesians 2:12
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

Romans 11:25
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not be conceited: A hardening in part has come to Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

You could say the mystery revealed by Paul was the Church if that is what you were looking for. No more Gentile or Jew. The formation of the one Church. The Church of God in Rome. The Church of God in Corinth, etc.

Salvation by grace is also a part of the revelation maybe. Hasn't that always been the path though? Whatever it was, it was hidden in the ages until Paul revealed it.
 
Last edited:

Madman

Senior Member
Whatever it was, it was hidden in the ages until Paul revealed it.
If I understand what you are saying I do not believe it was hidden. It was difficult to comprehend but not hidden.

Even the teachers had not bothered to understand the Scriptures. How could they teach correctly?

Matthew 22:29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.
 
Thread starter #107
"By the name of" means the same as "in the name of" (Acts 4:10, 30); speaking "in the name of" (Acts 4:17, 18; 5: 28, 40; 8:12; 9:27-29) means the same as in the Old Testament, "by the authority of" the one who sent the speaker (Jer. 20:9; 26:9-20); and "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" means we are to baptize by the authority of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost and not in the name of the Son ONLY. If we baptize in the name of the Son ONLY, we rob the Father and the Holy Ghost of their rightful authority in their part of redemption which baptism symbolizes. We also directly transgress the last commandment of Jesus before He had received in Heaven and Earth (Matt. 28:18). If He had the authority to command men to baptize this way and He Himself never authorized a change, then that authority still holds, and to reject it is to reject Jesus Christ.

Those who believe that Jesus is the only God should not reject and contradict the authority of Jesus. They should try some way to harmonize Acts with obedience to Matt. 28:19. Similarly, if one were authorized to do a job in the name of J. C. Penny and co. and or Sears Roebuck and Co. and of Montgomery Ward and Co. ONLY, rejecting the other two companies because "in the name" was not added before each name, he would be robbing the other two companies of their rightful recognition and authority. Would this do away with two companies , or make all three companies only one company? So Matt. 28:19 we have the full authority of the whole Godhead and of each member of the Godhead in particular. Refusal on the part of some to recognize more than one of the three persons involved does not do away with two of them, or make them only one person.
 
Thread starter #108
In Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5 we have emphasis given to the authority of Jesus, who is only one of the three persons of the Godhead. For it was His authority of only that was being rejected by the Jews at that time. They did not question the authority of the Father or of the Spirit, for they believed and accepted their authority, but to accept the authority of Jesus as they did that of God was another thing entirely. The apostles as described in the book of Acts merely demanded that the Jews accept the name Jesus and be baptized, saved, healed and do other things authorized in the name of Jesus by His authority, but in no passage do they reject or change Matt. 28:19 and say in the name of Jesus ONLY. There is not one place in Scripture where they demand of the Jews to accept Jesus as the only God and the only authority, but they were commanded to accept Him like they did God.
 
In Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5 we have emphasis given to the authority of Jesus, who is only one of the three persons of the Godhead. For it was His authority of only that was being rejected by the Jews at that time. They did not question the authority of the Father or of the Spirit, for they believed and accepted their authority, but to accept the authority of Jesus as they did that of God was another thing entirely. The apostles as described in the book of Acts merely demanded that the Jews accept the name Jesus and be baptized, saved, healed and do other things authorized in the name of Jesus by His authority, but in no passage do they reject or change Matt. 28:19 and say in the name of Jesus ONLY. There is not one place in Scripture where they demand of the Jews to accept Jesus as the only God and the only authority, but they were commanded to accept Him like they did God.
Could you explain in your own words what that means? I'm having trouble grasping your dogma. I would really love to hear it from you.
 
Thread starter #110
To baptize in the name of Jesus ONLY in preference to the authorization given in Matt. 28:19 upon the basis of mere inference that because all three names are not used in Acts they are not to be used, is subject to the judgment of God. Cannot Matt. 28:19 be obeyed as well as Acts? We could not obey both if we followed some sects, but we can and we must obey both if we obey God, for both Matthew and Acts are the word of God, and both must be obeyed (2 Tim. 3:16, 17) . Anyone obeying Matt. 28:19 automatically obeys Acts, but to interpret and obey Acts to mean that we should baptize in the name of Jesus ONLY, is to disobey Matt. 28:19. In other words, in baptizing by the authority of the three of Matt. 28:19 we automatically obey Acts, but if we baptize by the authority of Jesus ONLY we dishonor the other two in Matt. 28:19 and we become direct transgressors of Matt. 28:19. Obeying Acts and disobeying Matt. 28:19 is not excusable to intelligent people. Even if we were to obey Acts only as the true mode of baptism, then which passage in Acts shall we take as a true baptism formula, for all passages differ in wording?
 
Last edited:
To baptize in the name of Jesus ONLY in preference to the authorization given in Matt. 28:19 upon the basis of mere inference that because all three names are not used in Acts they are not to be used, is subject to the judgment of God. Cannot Matt. 28:19 be obeyed as well as Acts? We could not obey both if we followed some sects, but we can and we must obey both if we obey God, for both Matthew and Acts are the word of God, and both must be obeyed (2 Tim. 3:16, 17) . Anyone obeying Matt. 28:19 automatically obeys Acts, but to interpret and obey Acts to mean that we should baptize in the name of Jesus ONLY, is to disobey Matt. 28:19. In other words, in baptizing by the authority of the three of Matt. 28:19 we automatically obey Acts, but if we baptize by the authority of Jesus ONLY we dishonor the other two in Matt. 28:19 and we become direct transgressors of Matt. 28:19. Obeying Acts and disobeying Matt. 28:19 is not excusable to intelligent people. Even if we were to obey Acts only as the true mode of baptism, then which passage in Acts shall we take as a true baptism formula, for all passages differ I wording?
I don't see how you can obey both. Using the same logic, if one is baptized according to Matthew, he isn't baptized according to Acts.

If one believes in Oneness, as all three being one, then the "name" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit "is" Jesus. Matthew doesn't say "in the names of."

Just seems like one of those things we may not need to dwell on too much. Regardless of the Trinity or Oneness, the unity is still there.
 

Madman

Senior Member
I don't see how you can obey both. Using the same logic, if one is baptized according to Matthew, he isn't baptized according to Acts.

If one believes in Oneness, as all three being one, then the "name" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit "is" Jesus. Matthew doesn't say "in the names of."

Just seems like one of those things we may not need to dwell on too much. Regardless of the Trinity or Oneness, the unity is still there.
Then let's look at what has been traditionally believed to be the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" and what we know has been the teaching of the church from very early:

CHAPTER VII. 1 Now as regards baptism, thus baptize ye: having first rehearsed all these things, 2 baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 3 in running water. But if thou hast not running water, baptize in other water; and 4 if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, 5 pour water upon the head thrice, into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism 6 let the baptizer and the baptized fast; and any others who can; but the baptized thou shalt command to fast for one or two days before.

The Didache
 
I don't usually post links, but I don't feel like typing all this since it takes much context. It's about Esebius and his use of "in my name". I also don't support the site from which it came from. I just linked it because it came up first when I typed in Esebius and baptise in my name. Speaking of Context.... why would Jesus say "all authority has been given to me... to me, therefore go baptize in anything other than my name???? It's clearly a latter addition.https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/matthew-28-19
 

Madman

Senior Member
I don't usually post links, but I don't feel like typing all this since it takes much context. It's about Esebius and his use of "in my name". I also don't support the site from which it came from. I just linked it because it came up first when I typed in Esebius and baptise in my name. Speaking of Context.... why would Jesus say "all authority has been given to me... to me, therefore go baptize in anything other than my name???? It's clearly a latter addition.https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/matthew-28-19
Why is it "clearly a later addition"? Is it impossible for Christ to have said it? We have very early writings of the Bapisimal "formula". Perhaps "biblicalunitarian" has another agenda. Anything can be said on the internet and it must be true. I'm a bigger fan of source documents.

People seem to forget that the very group of men who fleshed out the language used to describe the Christian beliefs also canonized the Scriptures that these various groups use as proof text. I trust the church more than individual men.

Lots of things to ponder, while working out our salvation with fear and trembling.
 
Why is it "clearly a later addition"? Is it impossible for Christ to have said it? We have very early writings of the Bapisimal "formula". Perhaps "biblicalunitarian" has another agenda. Anything can be said on the internet and it must be true. I'm a bigger fan of source documents.

People seem to forget that the very group of men who fleshed out the language used to describe the Christian beliefs also canonized the Scriptures that these various groups use as proof text. I trust the church more than individual men.

Lots of things to ponder, while working out our salvation with fear and trembling.
I think you missed the point.... If he said "all authority has been given to me [to ME] therefore go baptize in my [MY] name" works. It don't work to say "authority has been given to me therefore go in multiple names. It clearly fits or works better this way. This you should acknowledge. You don't need to say that I'm right doctrine wise, but to deny your version is awkward.... well, that shows signs of someone whom realizes they have only a small handfull of proof texts, so they are not willing to let even one slip away. You would think that among so much writing in the bible, that it would not be such a small amount?
 
It's a major debate. Even Historian, unbiased Bart Erhman, believes the F, S and HS were original. We do have it used in antiquity before Eusebius. But clearly, Eusebius's copys that he was using, did not. So, it is clear, that one, or the other, was added. So, we can't actually say that the oldest copy wins. Because it was found much later than it was written. So we are each left to apply the context, of the bible, and , of the surrounding verses to form our own opinion. Personally, I think it's the 666, three part baptismal
 
Looking at my point, the context.... Lets examine further. If "all authority has been given to me...... and teaching them to obey everything "I" have commanded you, And surely "I" am with you always. I don't expect Trins to think it should have been "we" in place of I, but then again, insisting that F, S and HS is not awkward english, is not being honest
 
Lets think further... Are we not baptized into Jesus death??? The Father and HS never died??? Never raised??? Why then be baptized in their name. It's a context trainwreck
3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin—
 
Then let's look at what has been traditionally believed to be the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" and what we know has been the teaching of the church from very early:

CHAPTER VII. 1 Now as regards baptism, thus baptize ye: having first rehearsed all these things, 2 baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 3 in running water. But if thou hast not running water, baptize in other water; and 4 if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, 5 pour water upon the head thrice, into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism 6 let the baptizer and the baptized fast; and any others who can; but the baptized thou shalt command to fast for one or two days before.

The Didache
De we also follow the fasting part?
 
Lets think further... Are we not baptized into Jesus death??? The Father and HS never died??? Never raised??? Why then be baptized in their name. It's a context trainwreck
3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[a] that we should no longer be slaves to sin—
I would agree, Jesus is the one who died for our sins. The context of being baptized in the name of Jesus makes more sense.

Does Jesus still have that authority? Doesn't he keep it until he returns, defeats Satan and death? Then turns his kingdom over to his Father?

1 Corinthians 15:28
When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
 
Last edited:
Top