2006-04-05T02:08:00.000-07:00

Contents:
The Waldensian Church:
Early Christian Writers:

The Baptismal Formula in Scripture and History:

The Waldensian Church:

From: http://www.logon.org/english/S/p122.html

According to Allix:

The Reformers held that the Waldensian Church was formed about 120 A.D., from which date on they passed down from father to son the teachings they received from the apostles. The latin Bible the Italic, was translated from the Greek not later than 157 A.D. We are indebted to Beza, the renowned associate of Calvin, for the Statement that the Italic Church dates from 120 A.D. (Allix Churches of Piedmont, 1690 edn, p. 177, and Wilkinson Our Authorized Bible
Vindicated, p. 35, and Scrivener's Introduction, Vol. II, p. 43, cf. Dugger and Dodd A History of the True Religion, pp. 224-225).

The formation in 120, is consistent with the dispatch of the disciples of Polycarp from Smyrna (and Ephesus) as we have dealt with the persecution of the Church at Lyons, under Marcus Aurelius in 177, where Photinus, disciple of Polycarp, was martyred, and the passage of information back to Smyrna. The Churches in Gaul were subject to the Council in Milan for centuries, as is established herein until Papal interference.

Dugger and Dodd also note (p. 226) that:

Atto, bishop of Vireulli, had complained of such people eighty years before [before the year 1026 A.D.] and so had others before him, and there is the highest reason to believe that they had always existed in Italy (cf. Jones Church History, p. 218)

Thus the establishment of the Waldensian college in Milan, is a natural extension of this orientation. Dugger and Dodd go on to quote Mosheim as saying:

In Lombardy, which was the principle residence of the Italian heretics, there sprung up a singular sect, known, for what reason I cannot tell, by the denomination Passaginians. ... Like the other sects already mentioned, they had the utmost aversion to the discipline and dominion of the Church of Rome; but they were at the same time distinguished by two religious tenets which were peculiar to themselves.

The first was a notion that the observance of the Law of Moses, in everything except the offering of sacrifices, was obligatory upon Christians; in consequence of which they ... Abstained from those meats, the use of which was prohibited under the Mosaic economy, and celebrated the Jewish Sabbath. The second tenet that distinguished this sect was advanced in opposition to the
doctrine of three persons in the divine nature (Eccl. Hist., Cent 12, Part 2, Ch. 5, Sec. 14, p. 127: as quoted by Dugger and Dodd, emphasis retained).

Dugger and Dodd go on to say:

That the Cathari did retain and observe the ancient Sabbath, is certified by Romish adversaries. Dr. Allix quotes a Roman Catholic author of the twelfth century, concerning three sorts of heretics - the Cathari, the Passiginians, and the Arnoldistae. Allix says of this Romish writer that - 'He lays it down also as one of their opinions, 'that the law of Moses is to be kept according to the letter, and that the keeping of the Sabbath ... and other legal observances, ought to take place. They hold also that Christ, the Son of God, is not equal with the Father, and that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, these three ... are not one God and one substance; and as a surplus, to these errors, they judge and condemn all the doctors of the Church and universally the whole Roman Church ... (Eccl. Hist. of the Ancient Churches of Piedmont, pp. 168-169, cf. Dugger and Dodd, pp. 227-228).

Early Christian Writers:

From the book, The Formulation of the Doctrine of the Trinity by Lynnford Beachy

http://smyrna.org/Books/Formulation_of_the_Trinity/The_Formulation_of_the_Trinity.htm

Justin Martyr, quoting from Proverbs 8, refers to Christ in the following statement:

“The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works.… He begets me before all the hills.” He adds: “You perceive, my hearers, if you bestow attention, that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit.” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter CXXIX)

Irenaeus of Lyons wrote,

“For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” (Against Heresies 1:10:1, A. D. 189)

Tertullian wrote,

“We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made.” (Against Praxeas 2, A. D. 216)

Origen wrote,

“The specific points which are clearly handed down through the apostolic preaching are these: First, that there is one God who created and arranged all things, and who, when nothing existed, called all things into existence, and that in the final period this God, just as he had promised beforehand through the prophets, sent the Lord Jesus Christ. Secondly, that Jesus Christ himself, who came, was born of the Father before all creatures; and after he had ministered to the Father in the creation of all things, for through him all things were made.” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4, A.D. 225)

Novatian wrote,

“God the Father, founder and creator of all things, who alone knows no beginning, who is invisible, immeasurable, immortal, and eternal, is one God. Neither his greatness nor his majesty nor his power can possibly be—I should not say exceeded, for they cannot even be equaled. From him… the Word was born, his Son.… And the latter, since he was born of the Father, is always in the Father. And I indeed say always… He that exists before all time must be said to have been in the Father always, for he that exists before all time cannot be spoken of in relation to time.… Assuredly, he [the Son] is God, proceeding from God, causing, as Son, a second person after the Father, but not taking away from the Father the fact that God is one.” (Treatise on the Trinity 31, A.D. 235)

Epiphanius of Salamis wrote,

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of God the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father; God of God, light of light, true God of true God; begotten, not made;…” (The Man Well-Anchored 120, A.D. 374)

St. Patrick wrote,

“There is no other God, nor has there been heretofore, nor will there be hereafter, except God the Father unbegotten, without beginning, from whom is all beginning, upholding all things, as we say, and his Son Jesus Christ,…” (Confession of St. Patrick 4, A.D. 452)

The Baptismal Formula in Scripture and History

I have not verified the following information, but found it to be interesting

From: http://www.spiritandtruthministry.com/BaptismalFormula.html

According to both the Bible and history, the New Testament church invoked the name of Jesus at water aptism. Its
baptismal formula was "in the name of Jesus Christ" or "Lord Jesus," not "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost."

The Scriptural Record

Every time the Bible records the name or formula associated with an actual baptism in the New Testament church, it
describes the name Jesus. All five such accounts occur in the Book of Acts, the history book of the early church. It
records that the following people were baptized in Jesus' name.

The Jews, "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).

The Samaritans. "They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus' (Acts 8:16).

The Gentiles. "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord" (Acts 10:48). (The earliest Greek
manuscripts that we have say, "In the name of Jesus Christ," as do most versions today.)

The disciples of John (re-baptized). "They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:5).

The Apostles Paul. "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16).

Moreover, the Epistles contain a number of references or allusions to baptism in Jesus' name. See Romans 6:3-4; I
Corinthians 1:13; 6:11; Galatians 3:27 ; Colossians 2:12; James 2:7.

The only verse of Scripture that anyone could appeal to in support of a threefold baptismal formula is Matthew 28:
19, in which Jesus commanded baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The
word name in this verse is singular, however, indicating that the phrase describes on supreme name by which the
one God is revealed, not three names of three distinct persons.

The apostles understood Christ's words as a description of His own name, for they fulfilled His command by
baptizing in the name of Jesus. There is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4), and He has one supreme name today
(Zechariah 14:9). Jesus is the incarnation of all the fulness of the Godhead (Colossians 2:9). Jesus is the name of
the Son (Matthew 1:21), Jesus is the name by which the Father is revealed to us (John 5:43; 10:30; 14:9-11), and
Jesus is the name in which the Holy Spirit comes (John 14:16-18, 26).

Luke 24:47 is a parallel verse to Matthew 28:19, and describes Jesus as saying that repentance and remission of
sins-and baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)-would be preached "in his name." Jesus is the only saving
name, the name in which we receive remission of sins, the highest name made known to us, and the name which
we are to say and do all things (Acts 4:12; 10:43; Philippians 2:9-11; Colossians 3:17).

Thus the one supreme, saving name of Matthew 28:19 is Jesus. We are to fulfill the command of that verse as the
early church did, by invoking the name of Jesus at baptism.

The Historical Record

Respected historical sources verify that the early Christian church did not use a threefold baptismal formula but
invoked the name of Jesus in baptism well into the second and third centuries.

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389: "The formula used was "in the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ" or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the trine name… The earliest form,
represented in the Acts, was simple immersion… in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of
hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the trine name
(Justin)…"

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: "The evidence… suggests that baptism in early Christianity was
administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"

Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but
gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: "[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the
name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."

Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58: "The trinitarian baptismal formula,,, was
displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435: "The New Testament knows only
baptism in the name of Jesus… which still occurs even in the second and third centuries."

Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), 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.'"

Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: "It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in
the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of
the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed."

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: "The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly
used from the beginning… Bapti[sm] into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In
the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian
of Carthage, declared it to be valid."

Christians today should use the biblical baptismal formula as found in the New Testament. Everyone should be
baptized by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

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

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:
As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were
undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism,
literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the
silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul,
is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."

Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very
least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the
ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."

Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:
"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second
century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by
the Catholic Church in the second century."

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:
"The Trinity.-...is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs,...The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of
Antioch (c AD 180),...(The term Trinity) not found in Scripture..." "The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the
baptismal formula in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else
in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the
idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its
Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's form of the (ancient) text ("in
my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is
now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of
Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps
Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's
teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit:..."

The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:
"Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New
Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor.
1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt.
28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61...Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of
the formula...is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas... the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19
must be disputed..." page 435.

The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:
"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a
reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be
remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus,"..."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says:
"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the
facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."

New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:
"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition,
for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."

James Moffett's New Testament Translation:
In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so
far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in
the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus, cf.
Acts 1:5 +."

Tom Harpur:
Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's sake," page 103 informs us of these
facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of
Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we
know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize
people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into"
or "in" the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My Name" and
then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by
German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of
mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: "The Church of the first
days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to
baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion."

The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:
Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion.
Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should
probably read simply-"into My Name."

Theology of the New Testament:
By R. Bultmann, 1951, page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church and the Sacraments. The historical fact
that the verse Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confesses to 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 trine
formula, did not find it in his text of the Gospels; Hermas seems to be unacquainted with it; the evidence of the
Didache is ambiguous, and Eusebius habitually, though not invariably, quotes it in another form, "Go ye into all the
world and make diciples of all the Gentiles in My Name."

No one acquainted with the facts of textual history and patristic evidence can doubt the tendency would have been
to replace the Eusebian text (In My Name) by the ecclesiastical (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of baptism, so that
transcriptional evedence" is certainly on the side of the text omitting baptism.

But it is unnecessary to discuss this point at length, because even if the ordinary (modern Trinity) text of Matthew
28:19 be sound it can not represent historical fact.

Would they have baptized, as Acts says that they did, and Paul seem to confirm the statement, in the name of the
Lord Jesus if the Lord himself had commanded them to use the (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of the Church? On
every point the evidence of Acts is convincing proof that the (Catholic) tradition embodied in Matthew 28:19 is a
late (non-Scriptural Creed) and unhistorical.

Neither in the third gospel nor in Acts is there any reference to the (Catholic Trinitarian) Matthaean tradition, nor
any mention of the institution of (Catholic Trinitarian) Christian baptism. Nevertheless, a little later in the narrative
we find several references to baptism in water in the name of the Lord Jesus as part of recognized (Early) Christian
practice. Thus we are faced by the problem of a Christian rite, not directly ascribed to Jesus, but assumed to be a
universal (and original) practice. That it was so is confirmed by the Epistles, but the facts of importance are all
contained in Acts."

Also in the same book on page 336 in the footnote number one, Professor Lake makes an astonishing discovery in
the so-called Teaching or Didache. The Didache has an astonishing contradiction that is found in it. One passage
refers to the necessity of baptism in the name of the Lord, which is Jesus the other famous passage teaches a
Trinitarian Baptism. Lake raises the probability that the apocryphal Didache or 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 trine (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 trine 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 trine 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, 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 Apostles' Creed.
Matthew 28:19 was invented along with the Apocryphal Apostles' Creed to counter so-called heretics and Gnostics
that baptized in the name of Jesus Christ! Marcion although somewhat mixed up in some of his doctrine still
baptized his converts the Biblical way in the name of Jesus Christ. Matthew 28:19 is the first non-Biblical Roman
Catholic Creed! The spurious Catholic text of Matthew 28:19 was invented to support the newer triune, Trinity
doctrine. Therefore, Matthew 28:19 is not the "Great Commission of Jesus Christ." Matthew 28:19 is the great
Catholic hoax! Acts 2:38, Luke 24:47, and 1 Corinthians 6:11 give us the ancient original words and teaching of
Yeshua/Jesus! Is it not also strange that Matthew 28:19 is missing from the old manuscripts of Sinaiticus,
Curetonianus and Bobiensis?

"While the power of the episcopate and the significance of churches of apostolical (Catholic) foundation was thus
greatly enhanced, the Gnostic crisis saw a corresponding development of (man-made non-inspired spurious)
creed, at least in the West. Some form of instruction before baptism was common by the middle of the second
century. At Rome this developed, apparently, between 150 and 175, and probably in opposition to Marcionite
Gnosticism, into an explication of the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 the earliest known form of the so-called
Apostles Creed."

Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew
28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection
with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city
of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that
started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism
completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.

"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of
Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that
could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual
words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go,
and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded
you." That "Name" is Jesus.

Moreover, the Epistles contain a number of references or allusions to baptism in Jesus' name. See Romans 6:3-4; I
Corinthians 1:13; 6:11; Galatians 3:27 ; Colossians 2:12; James 2:7.

The only verse of Scripture that anyone could appeal to in support of a threefold baptismal formula is Matthew 28:
19, in which Jesus commanded baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The
word name in this verse is singular, however, indicating that the phrase describes on supreme name by which the
one God is revealed, not three names of three distinct persons.

The apostles understood Christ's words as a description of His own name, for they fulfilled His command by
baptizing in the name of Jesus. There is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4), and He has one supreme name today
(Zechariah 14:9). Jesus is the incarnation of all the fulness of the Godhead (Colossians 2:9). Jesus is the name of
the Son (Matthew 1:21), Jesus is the name by which the Father is revealed to us (John 5:43; 10:30; 14:9-11), and
Jesus is the name in which the Holy Spirit comes (John 14:16-18, 26).

Luke 24:47 is a parallel verse to Matthew 28:19, and describes Jesus as saying that repentance and remission of
sins-and baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)-would be preached "in his name." Jesus is the only saving
name, the name in which we receive remission of sins, the highest name made known to us, and the name which
we are to say and do all things (Acts 4:12; 10:43; Philippians 2:9-11; Colossians 3:17).

Thus the one supreme, saving name of Matthew 28:19 is Jesus. We are to fulfill the command of that verse as the
early church did, by invoking the name of Jesus at baptism.

The Historical Record

Respected historical sources verify that the early Christian church did not use a threefold baptismal formula but
invoked the name of Jesus in baptism well into the second and third centuries.

Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389: "The formula used was "in the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ" or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the trine name… The earliest form,
represented in the Acts, was simple immersion… in water, the use of the name of the Lord, and the laying on of
hands. To these were added, at various times and places which cannot be safely identified, (a) the trine name
(Justin)…"

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351: "The evidence… suggests that baptism in early Christianity was
administered, not in the threefold name, but 'in the name of Jesus Christ' or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus.'"

Otto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53: "At first baptism was administered in the name of Jesus, but
gradually in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible (1898). I, 241: "[One explanation is that] the original form of words was "into the
name of Jesus Christ" or 'the Lord Jesus,' Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development."

Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58: "The trinitarian baptismal formula,,, was
displacing the older baptism in the name of Christ."

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435: "The New Testament knows only
baptism in the name of Jesus… which still occurs even in the second and third centuries."

Canney's Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), 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.'"

Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473: "It is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in
the name of Jesus Christ,' or in that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of
the baptismal confession appear to have been single-not triple, as was the later creed."

Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365: "The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly
used from the beginning… Bapti[sm] into the name of the Lord [was] the normal formula of the New Testament. In
the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian
of Carthage, declared it to be valid."

Christians today should use the biblical baptismal formula as found in the New Testament. Everyone should be
baptized by immersion in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

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

The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics:
As to Matthew 28:19, it says: It is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were
undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism,
literary criticism and historical criticism. The same Encyclopedia further states that: "The obvious explanation of the
silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another (JESUS NAME) formula in Acts and Paul,
is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."

Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very
least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the
ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."

Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:
"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second
century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."

The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by
the Catholic Church in the second century."

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible 1963, page 1015:
"The Trinity.-...is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs,...The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of
Antioch (c AD 180),...(The term Trinity) not found in Scripture..." "The chief Trinitarian text in the NT is the
baptismal formula in Mt 28:19...This late post-resurrection saying, not found in any other Gospel or anywhere else
in the NT, has been viewed by some scholars as an interpolation into Matthew. It has also been pointed out that the
idea of making disciples is continued in teaching them, so that the intervening reference to baptism with its
Trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying. Finally, Eusebius's form of the (ancient) text ("in
my name" rather than in the name of the Trinity) has had certain advocates. (Although the Trinitarian formula is
now found in the modern-day book of Matthew), this does not guarantee its source in the historical teaching of
Jesus. It is doubtless better to view the (Trinitarian) formula as derived from early (Catholic) Christian, perhaps
Syrian or Palestinian, baptismal usage (cf Didache 7:1-4), and as a brief summary of the (Catholic) Church's
teaching about God, Christ, and the Spirit:..."

The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge:
"Jesus, however, cannot have given His disciples this Trinitarian order of baptism after His resurrection; for the New
Testament knows only one baptism in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:43; 19:5; Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:3; 1 Cor.
1:13-15), which still occurs even in the second and third centuries, while the Trinitarian formula occurs only in Matt.
28:19, and then only again (in the) Didache 7:1 and Justin, Apol. 1:61...Finally, the distinctly liturgical character of
the formula...is strange; it was not the way of Jesus to make such formulas... the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19
must be disputed..." page 435.

The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:
"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a
reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be
remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus,"..."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says:
"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the
facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."

New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:
"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition,
for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."

James Moffett's New Testament Translation:
In a footnote on page 64 about Matthew 28:19 he makes this statement: "It may be that this (Trinitarian) formula, so
far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Catholic) liturgical usage established later in
the primitive (Catholic) community, It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus, cf.
Acts 1:5 +."

Tom Harpur:
Tom Harpur, former Religion Editor of the Toronto Star in his "For Christ's sake," page 103 informs us of these
facts: "All but the most conservative scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command [Triune part of
Matthew 28:19] was inserted later. The [Trinitarian] formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we
know from the only evidence available [the rest of the New Testament] that the earliest Church did not baptize
people using these words ("in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost") baptism was "into"
or "in" the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read "baptizing them in My Name" and
then was expanded [changed] to work in the [later Catholic Trinitarian] dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by
German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of
mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: "The Church of the first
days (AD 33) did not observe this world-wide (Trinitarian) commandment, even if they knew it. The command to
baptize into the threefold [Trinity] name is a late doctrinal expansion."

The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:
Dr. Peake makes it clear that: "The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion.
Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should
probably read simply-"into My Name."

Theology of the New Testament:
By R. Bultmann, 1951, page 133 under Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church and the Sacraments. The historical fact
that the verse Matthew 28:19 was altered is openly confesses to 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 trine
formula, did not find it in his text of the Gospels; Hermas seems to be unacquainted with it; the evidence of the
Didache is ambiguous, and Eusebius habitually, though not invariably, quotes it in another form, "Go ye into all the
world and make diciples of all the Gentiles in My Name."

No one acquainted with the facts of textual history and patristic evidence can doubt the tendency would have been
to replace the Eusebian text (In My Name) by the ecclesiastical (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of baptism, so that
transcriptional evedence" is certainly on the side of the text omitting baptism.

But it is unnecessary to discuss this point at length, because even if the ordinary (modern Trinity) text of Matthew
28:19 be sound it can not represent historical fact.

Would they have baptized, as Acts says that they did, and Paul seem to confirm the statement, in the name of the
Lord Jesus if the Lord himself had commanded them to use the (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of the Church? On
every point the evidence of Acts is convincing proof that the (Catholic) tradition embodied in Matthew 28:19 is a
late (non-Scriptural Creed) and unhistorical.

Neither in the third gospel nor in Acts is there any reference to the (Catholic Trinitarian) Matthaean tradition, nor
any mention of the institution of (Catholic Trinitarian) Christian baptism. Nevertheless, a little later in the narrative
we find several references to baptism in water in the name of the Lord Jesus as part of recognized (Early) Christian
practice. Thus we are faced by the problem of a Christian rite, not directly ascribed to Jesus, but assumed to be a
universal (and original) practice. That it was so is confirmed by the Epistles, but the facts of importance are all
contained in Acts."

Also in the same book on page 336 in the footnote number one, Professor Lake makes an astonishing discovery in
the so-called Teaching or Didache. The Didache has an astonishing contradiction that is found in it. One passage
refers to the necessity of baptism in the name of the Lord, which is Jesus the other famous passage teaches a
Trinitarian Baptism. Lake raises the probability that the apocryphal Didache or 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 trine (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 trine 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 trine 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, 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 Apostles' Creed.
Matthew 28:19 was invented along with the Apocryphal Apostles' Creed to counter so-called heretics and Gnostics
that baptized in the name of Jesus Christ! Marcion although somewhat mixed up in some of his doctrine still
baptized his converts the Biblical way in the name of Jesus Christ. Matthew 28:19 is the first non-Biblical Roman
Catholic Creed! The spurious Catholic text of Matthew 28:19 was invented to support the newer triune, Trinity
doctrine. Therefore, Matthew 28:19 is not the "Great Commission of Jesus Christ." Matthew 28:19 is the great
Catholic hoax! Acts 2:38, Luke 24:47, and 1 Corinthians 6:11 give us the ancient original words and teaching of
Yeshua/Jesus! Is it not also strange that Matthew 28:19 is missing from the old manuscripts of Sinaiticus,
Curetonianus and Bobiensis?

"While the power of the episcopate and the significance of churches of apostolical (Catholic) foundation was thus
greatly enhanced, the Gnostic crisis saw a corresponding development of (man-made non-inspired spurious)
creed, at least in the West. Some form of instruction before baptism was common by the middle of the second
century. At Rome this developed, apparently, between 150 and 175, and probably in opposition to Marcionite
Gnosticism, into an explication of the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 the earliest known form of the so-called
Apostles Creed."

Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:
He makes this confession as to the origin of the chief Trinity text of Matthew 28:19. "The basic form of our (Matthew
28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection
with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city
of Rome." The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that
started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism
completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.

"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of
Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to this eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that
could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual
words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go,
and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded
you." That "Name" is Jesus.

What the Early Christian Chuch Believed about God