Is Matt 28:19 fake?

There is no such things as a "baptism formula." When the bible says we are to baptize in the "Name" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the Gospels, and in the "Name" of Jesus in Acts it is saying exactly the same thing! It is not the pronouncement of some magic words that makes baptism correct, it is the authority of that baptism. To baptize in the "Name" of the Lord simply means "with His authority." Matthew 28:18 makes that clear, "All power (authority) is given unto me, 19 Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of . . ." That is a statement of authority. And in Acts, when they baptized in the "Name" of Jesus, it means exactly the same thing! They baptized with His authority, given to them in the Great Commission! This whole issue has absolutely nothing to do with Oneness heresy or even Trinitarian orthodoxy. It has to do with authority as given in the Great Commission. That is what "commission" means, it is to commission or appoint someone to act on your behalf with authority. I was a commissioned officer in the military, that meant I had the authority to give orders in the name of the commanding General. This is a very simple issue that some people, apparently devoid of understanding, have made into something ridiculously complicated. Anyone old enough to remember the Keystone Cops knows what "in the name of" means. They spent half their time yelling, "Stop in the name of the law." Nobody is dumb enough to believe the cop's name was "Law" are they? It was a statement of authority!

 

DocCas said:

Nobody is dumb enough to believe the cop's name was "Law" are they?

No, but apparently there are a whole bunch of people dumb enough to think God the Father's name is Jesus.

 

Don't blame the Oneness people for being the only who says Matthew 28:19 does not exist because there has been many Trinitarians afraid of this scripture also because of the fact that name is in the singular and it is grammatically incorrect to say Father is a name and Son is a name and Holy Ghost is a name. Please don't rush to Isaiah because the interpretation of the Hebrew word for name meant titles.

In this dispute there has been Trinitarians who claim the orignal said, "Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them with the authority of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost>"
Then others have said "Go ye there and teach all nations baptizing them into the Father, Son and Holy Ghost."

 

I not sure where this idea came from, but it is not true. Baptists and protestants did not accept the apocrypha. While it is true that some Bibles had these extra, non canonical books printed in them, it does not prove or even suggest acceptance of the apocrypha.

I took an independent Baptist church in Illniois a number of years ago and when I arrived at that church, they had a large bible on the Lord's Supper table which had the apocrypha in it. While I did take that Bible and put it away, the members of that church did not directly or indirectly approve of the apocrypha. It was just an old Bible which someone had purchased for the church which began in 1834. We need to be careful of those who are rewriting history to teach what they want rather than reflecting the truth.

 

Circuitrider said:

While it is true that some Bibles had these extra, non canonical books printed in them, it does not prove or even suggest acceptance of the apocrypha.

And in fact, the Anglican Church affirmed quite the opposite. Article 6 of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion says in part:

In other words, they are useful books but not inspired books.

The Thirty-Nine Articles were established in 1571. This is the "Faith" James I was the "Defender" of, and the translators of the KJV, as clergy within the Church of England, were required to assent to them.

 

Ransom, you better be careful or Pastor Martin will nominate you for a KJV Defender award!

 

Lorelei: I was Oneness Pentecostal for years before I came out of that movement. I know that doctrine inside and out. I know what they do and do not believe. I know the errors they teach.
I have spent a lot of time studying baptismal doctrines, the Godhead both Oneness and Trinity and other doctrines that exist about the Godhead.
I have had people say I am wrong when I say there are various beliefs on the Trinity but I have read many books, studied encyclopedia, religious commentaries and history books etc.

I have read different and various books and web sites on the Bible and many of them say the apocrypha was in the original KJV. No where did I say anything about anyone accepting these books for doctrinal purposes. I made a statement that these books were at first accepted but they did not get removed from most of the KJV until the 1800's.

 

Actually the Apocrypha was removed from some printings of the KJV as early as the 1613 edition, 2nd printing.