For those who wish to correct something in this video, kindly adhere to the fundamental principle of Protestantism,-the Bible and the Bible only as the rule of faith and practice. I shared my case clearly from the Bible. If you have a correction then bring your evidences, clear and plain, from the Word of God. A “Thus saith the Lord” is the strongest testimony you can possibly present. 🔓 Unlock the Bible's Hidden Treasures! Study with me at www.nadermansour.com/academy. Join now & start your learning journey today! 📖🌟 Deeper Bible study for serious students.
During my baptism in 2019, I did not allow anyone to speak. I myself said the words: "Lord Jesus, I am a sinner. For my sins I would go to hell. But you died for me on the cross. I now accept you as my Lord and Savior and I believe in your resurrection." Amen. My baptism was miraculous.
Thank you, Brother Nader! for this clarification on the parrot-spirit. Be blessed and walk strong and uncompromised...to the delight and edification of many. Your Brother Ralph, from Germany....hope to see you next year!!!
In the case of baptism we should not make the Bible contradict itself. Instead we should look for harmony in those statements. Peter’s emphasis on the name of Jesus is understandable, given that he was speaking to the very same Jews who had before rejected and denied Jesus as their Messiah “The presence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the three highest powers in the universe and those in whose name the believer is baptized, is pledged to be with every striving soul.”-Pacific Union Recorder, September 2, 1908.
Here in this quote you can see beautifully how EGW was writing complete nonsense or vit elsewhere the heavenly trio etc., which absolutely does not fit with the biblical message of the one true God the Father.
*Does Matthew 28:19 say the Holy Spirit is a Third Being?* *Trinitarians often claim Matthew 28:19 supports their belief in a Trinity and the Holy Spirit as a third being. But this verse in no way affirms the Trinity doctrine which states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three co-equal, co-eternal beings that make up one God.* *Nobody denies there is the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.* *But does this verse actually say the HOLY SPIRIT is a THIRD CO-EQUAL BEING? No!*
Act 13-2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. The Holy Spirit seems very much like a person. You are born unto God, and you stand under the sanction and the power of the three holiest beings in heaven, who are able to keep you from falling. 7MR 267.2
@@randy-b2j2p KJ2 King James 2000 Acts 4:10-12: "Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him does this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is no other name under heaven given among men, by which we must be saved."
In addition I appreciated you explanation of the parrot syndrome. It is so important to prove to ourselves what the Bible says, not just repeat what others say.
I really appreciate your depth of Bible understanding. You are truly blessed in your Bible investigative journey. I do have a problem with Matthew 28:19. Eusebius before the time of the Council of Nicea wrote 17 letters quoting this scripture but always said in the name of Jesus. Sometime after Nicea it appears the phrase in the name of the Father, son, and holy spirit crept in to support the trinity. It is a corruption.
1. What do we know about baptism in the Bible? - That it was commanded by Jesus and put into practice by the Apostles and the early church John 3:5, Mark 16:15-16. Matthew 28:18-20 - That those who, after hearing and understanding the Gospel, freely chose to become Christians and follow Christ were baptized Acts 2:14-41. Acts 8:5-13... - That those who believed, repented and confessed their faith in Jesus Christ were immersed in water for the forgiveness of sins Acts 2:38. Acts 8:35-39, Acts 22:16 - That the result of baptism was the reception of salvation, the gift of the Holy Spirit and the addition to the body of the church, to the group of disciples Acts 2:38. Acts 2:41 - That those who had been baptized with another type of baptism were rebaptized with Christian baptism Acts 19:3-5 2. What do we not know about baptism? We don't know what specific words were used when someone was baptized. In no example of baptism in the Bible is the formula used or the specific words used described, neither in the case of John the Baptist nor in the case of the disciples, and that should be enough to understand that it is not the formula that is important but the authority. What gives validity to baptism is not the formula used, not the place where it is done, not the quality of the water and not the value of the person baptizing, but if it is done in the right way and with the right purpose. According to Acts 2:40 the apostle Peter inspired by the Holy Spirit spoke many more words than those reported by Luke who was also inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote, not as stated in the video. Neither in Matthew nor in Acts is it about the formula but about the Authority. Baptism is done in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit or in the name of Jesus Christ if it respects the authority of Jesus, this means that it is done in the specified way, that is, by immersion in water and with the specified purpose, that is, for the forgiveness of sins. 3. The problem with most who insist only on the formula In the Name of Jesus is that they associate this expression with the wrong theory that Jesus is God the Father in the Old Testament, God the Son in the New Testament and God the Holy Spirit in the church age. God is One: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit and is the same yesterday, today and in the future.
Baptism in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is not Biblical and therefore it is a fraud and none of the apostles baptized in this way. KJ2 King James 2000 Acts 4:10-12: "Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him does this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is no other name under heaven given among men, by which we must be saved."
What would be more impoirtant? A sinner accepting Jesus as his new Lord and the forgiver of sins, having his sins washed away in the symbolic death of Baptism and being raised from that to a new life, or the actual words being used in the baptism, respecting that the authority is from God through Jesus, and doing the act by that authority?
From James White: “Thus too the exact formula for baptism, Matthew 28:19, though to the best of my knowledge it occurs “only once,” is almost universally admitted to be the only proper one. ARSH July 28, 1863, page 67.3
It is beautifully evident from that statement that J. White has not gone to any trouble to seek the truth, but has relied only on what most people believe erroneously.
@ “not gone to any trouble to seek truth”??? James White, EGWs husband? The pinacle of the false AT movement just exposed the sniveling Mesa - Mansour baptism plan, the SAME James White that ATs desperately idolize. Yeahhhhhhhh
Amen, baptized in the Lord Jesus Christ’s name. Acts 2:38 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 8:16 For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. Acts 19:5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord,
Until the 1970s, all Adventists were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ only, and only after they were baptized in the name of the Roman Catholic Trinity.
In 1900 Adventists were baptised in the threefold name. "“In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, man is laid in his watery grave, buried with Christ in baptism, and raised from the water to live the new life of loyalty to God The three great powers in heaven are witnesses; they are invisible but present.”-Manuscript 57, 1900 (6 Bible Commentary, 1074).
@mikmak. "We recognize the divine Trinity,-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,-each possessing a distinct and separate personality, but one in nature and in purpose, so welded together in this infinite union that the apostle James speaks of them as "one God." James 2:19 "The doctrine of the trinity is true when rightly understood [or taught in the true way." --Stephen N. Haskell Our pioneers believed the same.
@loransay J.White was an anti-trinitarian and others. However, they still didn't believe quite right biblically. In short, at that time they did not yet have the light from God in this doctrine as we have today.
I don’t understand why Ellen White in many places said the following but you are contradicting her. Please explain why she is wrong? Did you not receive baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost? These great powers were pledged, these three highest powers in heaven were pledged that every one should keep the promise of their baptism.. 22LtMs, Ms 180, 1907, par. 11-22LtMs, Ms 180, 1907, par. 12
None of the apostles baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit simply because Jesus did not teach anything like that in Matthew, written first in Hebrew, there is not even a word about baptism in 28.19. It only appeared there in Matthew written in Greek. EGW didn't know that or she wouldn't have written such nonsense.
In chapter 7 of the Didache, First century Christian handbook to the nation, it clearly gives the format as laid out in Matthew 28. I don’t think your argument holds water to a commandment that has been practiced for nearly 2,000 years. Also stated in the Ante-Nicene Father’s writings.
Great commission has nothing to do with the TRINITY Doctrine. 👇🏼 The Great Commission doesn't prove a Trinity or three gods or beings. 🙏🏽 👇 *Christ gave His followers a positive promise* that after His ascension He would send them *HIS SPIRIT.* "Go ye therefore," he said, "and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the *FATHER (A PERSONAL GOD],* and of the *SON [A PERSONAL PRINCE AND SAVIOUR],* and of the *HOLY GHOST (SENT FROM HEAVEN TO REPRESENT CHRIST]:* teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, *lo, am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."* Review & Herald, October 26, 1897, par. 9 _NOTICE how Ellen White did NOT use the word _*_"personal"_*_ for the Holy Ghost!_
The law shall last until that Seed should come... Many believe that since that Seed came the law was done away with. Can you please clear that up in a video? If you have already done so, what is the title? Thanks. My nephew who listens to the daughters of the harlot, has questions.
*The prejudice of the Jews was aroused because the disciples of Jesus did not use the exact words of John in the rite of baptism.* John baptized unto *REPENTANCE,* but the *disciples of Jesus,* on *PROFESSION of the faith*, baptized in the *name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.* The teachings of John were in *perfect harmony with those of Jesus, yet his disciples became jealous for fear his influence was diminishing.* A *dispute arose between them and the disciples of Jesus in regard to the FORM of words proper to use at BAPTISM, and finally as to the right of the latter to baptize at all.* 2SP 136.3
This is an EGW lie, because not one apostle baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit simply because Jesus never taught any such thing. Nor did Jesus baptize anyone with water, but with the Holy Spirit (the spirit of truth), which is far more important than just being baptized with water.
@@mikmark100yes the disciples baptized in the threefold name. EGW was a true prophet. You don’t go questioning the true prophet. If she said it, it’s true! Prophetic Inspiration does not contradict scripture.
@@VibrantMarcos EGW and her views are not needed by a true Christian for anything, because he can get by with the Bible alone. EGW is a waste of time for any Christian. Everything we need to know about God is in the Bible.
@gracelynfortlightamooti6763 Google it under the same name there are more PDF files, but only one has an extra one at adventistas-historicos, which is also the name of the web site, but it can only be purchased there, but it's not in English there
Before the apostles baptize those willing to be their disciple, they should teach them about the name of the father, which is Jehovah or Yahweh, and the name of the Son which is Jesus, and the spirit has no name, because it is the power of the Father, it appeared like dove during Jesus's baptism, and it appeared a top of many followers right after Jesus ascend into heaven as exalted chief prince ,( not God) , Their true disciples should preach inlined with apostles beliefs and teachings, since Jesus instructed them this way, " make disciples in all earth, teachings them to do what I teach you," Jesus did not say, let them do whatever they want or believed, Acts, 5:28-32, The apostles preached, That Jehovah or Yahweh, rose Jesus from the dead, , Jesus personally and privately revealed this to his apostles, @Mat, 10:26-28/ Mark, 4:34/ Mat, 13:10-11 , which is contradicted .from his figurative Divisive statements to his critics, "destroy this temple, and I rise it in.three days, he is not rose himself but his father,
🤔 Is my Water Immersion Baptism INVALID because I NO 🚫 longer believe in the Triune Trinity Tritheism co-equal co-eternal distinct individual person god ❓
Nobody knows. The important thing is to be sealed by the Holy Spirit, who gives you the truth through the Scriptures. And if you have inwardly accepted the truth of the one true God you are sealed by that Holy Spirit and probably don't necessarily need to be re-baptized. But no one is stopping you from going through it again correctly. KJ2 King James 2000 Eph 1:12-13: "That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after you believed, you were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise,"
Whad about Jesus baptism? Formulas dont work, Paul said the human race was baptized in the Red sea, why argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a needle? Why was a tree tossed into the bitter water of Marah?
It's just okay whether you baptized in the name of the Father or in the name of Jesus or in the name of the Holy Spirit. Because both Holy Spirit and Word (Son Jesus) came from God the Father Himself and belongs to God the Father Himself. So these three are One in essence.
Brother. I’d like to tell you my highest respect for the wisdom God has given you in many subjects. If we both get to Heaven, I will be one of your stars in your crown because it was through your videos that I accepted the truth regarding the personality of God and of Christ. However, I cannot agree with you here. I think you are making a mistake in several of your arguments. Since you have done this publicly, and I am among those whom you have labeled as fanatical according to how you view this issue, I must respond publicly.
If the HS is part and parcel of the Son then why in the names of the two? Just like to teach in the name of Jesus imply (Act 4:18-20), to baptize in the name of Jesus means to do so strictly according to His instructions given in Mt.28:19. How can you say that the instruction is not the formula? Where then is the template given as explicitly as it is in Mt.28:19? God did not intend that His word is as complicated and implicit as you portray. Note that in Act 8:16 baptism in the name of the Son ONLY was inadequate. Too sad that you are under a deception.
@@lionf7224 The Greek word logos has about 20 meanings, and the fact that the three influential translators (which was the majority) chose to translate logos-the word-is their problem, just as it can be translated as purpose, i.e., God's purpose made flesh by Jesus Christ at the end of time.
John 1:14 KJV And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. The Word is clearly Jesus
@loransay John 1:14a The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. (NIV) 1. The “Word” is the wisdom, plan or purpose of God (see John 1:1) and the Word “became flesh” as Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus Christ was “the Word in the flesh,” which is shortened to “the Word” for ease of speaking. Scripture is also the Word, but it is the Word in writing. Everyone agrees that the “Word” in writing had a beginning. So did the “Word” in the flesh. In fact, the Greek text of Matthew 1:18 says that very clearly: “Now the beginning of Jesus Christ was in this manner.” Some ancient scribes were so uncomfortable with the idea of Jesus having a “beginning” that they tried to alter the Greek text to read “birth” and not “beginning,” but they were unsuccessful. The modern Greek texts all read “beginning” (genesis) in Matthew 1:18. “Birth” is considered an acceptable translation of “genesis,” since the beginning of some things is birth, and so most translations read “birth” in Matthew 1:18. Nevertheless, the proper understanding of Matthew 1:18 is the “beginning” (genesis) of Jesus Christ. In the beginning, God had a plan, a purpose, which “became flesh” when Jesus was conceived. To make John 1:14 support the Trinity, there must first be proof that Jesus existed before he was born and was called “the Word.” We do not believe that such proof exists. There is a large body of evidence, however, that Jesus was foreknown by God, and that the “the Word” refers to God’s plan or purpose. We contend that the meaning of the verse is straightforward. God had a plan (the Word) and that plan became flesh when Jesus was conceived. Thus, Jesus became “the Word in the flesh.” 2. It is also important to note that the text does not say, ‘God became flesh,’ nor does it mean that. In the Prologue, “the word” is the plan, or purpose of God, not God himself, it is something different from God throughout the Prologue. It is “with” God in John 1:1b and John 1:2; God sent John the Baptist, “the word” did not send John the Baptist (John 1:6); In John 1:11 believers become children of God, not children of “the word”; In John 1:18, the Son (Jesus, the word) explains God, the Son does not explain himself. It is clear that all throughout the Prologue, “the word” is something different from God, it is not God, therefore, we should not understand John 1:14 to mean ‘God became flesh.’ 3. It is quite fair to ask why John would say, “the Word became flesh,” a statement that seems so obvious to us. Of course Jesus Christ was flesh. He was born, grew, ate and slept, and Scripture calls him a man. However, what is clear to us now was not at all clear in the early centuries of the Christian era. In our notes on John 1:1, we explain that the Bible must be understood in the context of the culture in which it was written. At the time of John’s writing, the “Docetic” movement was gaining disciples inside Christianity (“Docetic” comes from the Greek word for “to seem” or “to appear”). Docetic Christians believed Jesus was actually a spirit being, or god, who only “appeared” to be human. Some Docetists did not believe Jesus even actually ate or drank, but only pretended to do so. Furthermore, some Jews thought that Jesus was an angel. In theological literature, theologians today call this “angel-Christology.” John 1:14 was not written to show that Jesus was somehow pre-existent and then became flesh. It was to show that God’s plan for salvation “became flesh,” i.e., Jesus was not a spirit, god or angelic being, but rather a flesh-and-blood man. A very similar thing is said in 1 John 4:2, that if you do not believe Jesus has come in the flesh, you are not of God.
I know many are not so interested in the old Adventist pillars and testimonies these days, but for those that are, please note that this conclusion on baptism would also logically mean that the teachings of the Adventist pioneers, including James and Ellen White, were false, making them heretical in the eyes of God for teaching that the commission was to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, while also plainly stating that baptizing in the name of Jesus alone is erroneous and not the commission which was given by Christ. Logically it would also mean that Ellen White was not inspired by God, or else she would have rebuked the brethren for teaching such errors. And yes, what they taught about this had nothing to do with the trinity, no matter what the corporate church would like you to believe. "God’s ambassadors, Christ’s true ministers, by the authority of their great commission, baptize ’in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ This not only shows the importance of baptism, but that both the Father and the Son, and also the Holy Spirit, have a part in the conversion of sinners. The Father is our lawgiver, Christ our mediator, and the Holy Spirit our reprover, comforter and sanctifier. God pity those who are converted by a gospel that has only the Son in it, leaving the Father out altogether, and immersion supplying the place of the Holy Spirit. It is no marvel that ministers of this sort should depart from the language found in the original commission, and baptize their converts in ’the name of the Lord Jesus.’ Happy thought, indeed, to those who keep the commandments of God, the commandments of Christ, and the commandments of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, and who enjoy the sanctifying peace of the Holy Spirit, that they have been buried with their divine Lord in baptism, ’in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’” - James White, ARSH, October 31, 1878, p. 140 "The prejudice of the Jews was aroused because the disciples of Jesus did not use the exact words of John in the rite of baptism. John baptized unto repentance, but the disciples of Jesus, on profession of the faith, baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. . . A dispute arose between them and the disciples of Jesus in regard to the form of words proper to use at baptism, and finally as to the right of the latter to baptize at all. - Spiritual Gifts Vol. 2, p. 136.3 "We are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Matthew 28:19. By this we express our belief in the existence of the one true God, the mediation of his Son, and the influence of the Holy Spirit." - Uriah Smith, Bible Student’s Assistant, p. 21.7 "Baptism is a perpetual ordinance in the church, and the ministers of the nineteenth century baptize ‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,’ because the original commission requires it." - James White, ARSH, Feb. 4, 1862, p.76.6 "Because it is said in Acts 2:38; 8:16, and 19:5, that they were baptized in the name of Jesus, some have inferred that the apostles baptized in the name of Christ only. But this conclusion is very lame. To discover the fallacy of this idea, it will only be necessary to examine the terms of the commission under which they acted. But to conclude thence that they did not obey their Lord’s commandment-that they did not fulfill their commission to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost-is more than the inspired record will warrant." - J. H. Waggoner, Thoughts on Baptism, pp. 62-63
Was EGW familiar with Matthew written in Hebrew where there is no mention of baptism? Apparently not, according to what she wrote. That's why she only wrote about what she read in the Bible. God didn't tell her how to baptize correctly. Why did Adventists baptize only in the name of Jesus Christ until 1970? Why do many other churches still baptize correctly today?
@@mikmark100 But Matthew was originally written in Koine Greek, not Hebrew, and the Greek reads "βαπτίζω (baptizo)". Also, what is your source for Seventh-day Adventists baptizing only in the name of Jesus until 1970? Did you read the pioneer quotes I posted? They baptized exclusively in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and were against baptizing only in the name of Jesus, and this had nothing to do with the trinity, but everything to do with what Jesus commanded. "In the name Jesus" means with the authority of Jesus, it does not refer to the words being used in the baptism itself.
@@RemnantAudio-j8f In the comments from me you will find two links one of them is from adventistas-historicos to a PDF file free download by name in Czechoslovakia at that time baptism was still in the 70's of the 20th century only in the name of Jesus Christ and the Catholics were terribly bothered by this and asked the Adventists when they would finally change this, which they later did and started baptizing with the later invented Catholic baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
@@mikmark100 But this is not any kind of evidence that the pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist church like James White, Ellen White, J. N. Loughborough, Uriah Smith, John Andrews, Stephen Haskell, J. H. Waggoner etc. did not baptize in the name of the The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. We can see they did from their very own writings again and again. Anyone can access these texts and they make it clear that they did not baptize in the name of Jesus alone, for the reasons that have been mentioned in my earlier posts already. Matthew 28:19 has nothing to do with any kind of a triune god, no matter what the Catholics and apostate Protestants might claim. What you are referring to seems like one of the many deviations from the Advent faith, which have been happening within Adventism ever since it got started, and keeps happening right now within the Father and Son movement. There were many kinds of deviations from the established truth within Adventism even during the time of the pioneers, and Ellen White had to write against many of these deviations, like the Holy Flesh movement, which surfaced in the SDA Indiana conference, or the Flat Earth movement, which surfaced in the SDA New York conference. Both of these movements have resurfaced now, and are bringing confusion into it, just like these other deviations like original sin, different baptism or feastkeeping. If one considers themselves to be a Seventh-day Adventist, they should be very careful when claiming that the pioneers had not studied their Bibles properly and were not led by God as a movement, or did not have a prophet of God amongst them.
@RemnantAudio-j8f I certainly don't believe EGW was a prophet of God she even copied her first vision from W. Foy and supposedly had it exactly the same as him, which he confirmed when he came to hear it. Foy continued to have visions and wrote a book about it. So it is not at all true that the visions passed from him to EGW as the church claims. For another EGW never considered himself a prophet, but only a messenger receiving visions from God. It was only after her death that the church made her a prophet at General Conference. She copied much from others and then said it was revealed to her by the Holy Spirit. Read her books once for interest, yes, but otherwise there is no point in taking her seriously because there are a million doubts surrounding her and that doesn't add anything to her credibility it only takes away. The truth is only in the Bible, and that's what every Opavdian should take as a foundation and needs nothing else for salvation.
Jesus said no such thing, read Matthew in the Hebrew in which it was first written. There's nothing in there about baptism, it just says Go. And teach all that I have commanded you. Eusebius saw this beautiful version and the longer one in Greek in his day and confirms it.
I am sorry to say, but brother, you are fulfilling a terrible prophecy (making the Spirit of Prophecy of no effect in these last days). And around 5:20, you say it yourself: this is how Jesus said we are to baptise. Both the Bible and the published works of EGW (in her lifetime) are clear and simple. There was no need for you to cast darkness and confusion on the matter by producing this video.
@@mikmark100 You can have this grace and this power if you will. But you must educate yourselves in accordance with your baptismal vows. When you took these vows, you pledged yourself, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that you would live unto God, and you have no right to break this pledge.. RH June 22, 1905, par. 14 What are you talking about? This is from 1905.
@midlertidigjan EGW was a Methodist Trinitarian from birth. Then she married an anti-Trinitarian, James White, and during his lifetime she hardly wrote on the subject, and after his death the celestial trios, etc. began to appear, assuming she wrote it at all. But it doesn't matter, because she was completely wrong on this compared to what the Bible teaches.
Jesus said " HE" would raise this temple up in three days! Referring to his resurrection. Jesus/ Father and Spirit work in unison, so When the Father is said to have raised Jesus and Jesus is the percice being of the Father it's both acting as one.
Sounds pretty much that you are twisting the scriptures to say what you want it to mean brother?? I believe the words of JESUS are clear and has more authority than Peter.....
I pretty sure you don’t understand the scripture. That’s why you complain a Nader for his video.. he is totally clear with all his interpretations, I encourage you to see the video about the first sermon of Peter, , after it you will understand everything.
More false teachings from this false teacher. Jude 1:25 "To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen" So if the Father is the only true God and Jesus is the only wise God what is that telling us? It is simply saying that the Oneness of God is not a Oneness in Number but rather, "I pray that the all may be One as We Are ONE. it is s Oneness in UNITY. FATHER, SON AND HOLY GHOST= ONE GOD!!!
@mikmark100 Rev 1:8 " I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty' If He is the Almighty then He is also all wise!!!
@Jasho-Beam Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. (NIV) The phrase, “the First and the Last,” is a title that is used five times in the Bible, twice in Isaiah of God (Isa. 44:6; 48:12) and three times in Revelation of the Son (Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13). Trinitarians sometimes make the assumption that since the same title applies to both the Father and the Son, they must both be God. However, there is no biblical justification on which to base that assumption. When the whole of Scripture is studied, one sees that the same titles are used for God, Christ and men. Examples include “Lord” (see Rom. 10:9) and “Savior” (see Luke 1:47) and “King of kings” (Ezra 7:12; see 1 Tim. 6:14-16). If other titles apply to God, Christ and men without making all of them into “one God,” then there is no reason to assume that this particular title would mean they were one God unless Scripture specifically told us so, which it does not. Let us look more closely at these titles to try and understand their meaning. Since, all three phrases, “the First and the Last,” “the Beginning and the End,” and “the Alpha and the Omega,” are so similar and all are said of Jesus in Revelation 22:13, we will treat them as essentially the same in meaning. So, what is the meaning of these titles when God is described as “the Alpha and the Omega” or “the First and the Last”? Although there is no evidence from the historical sources that anyone is named “the Alpha and the Omega,” Bullinger says that the phrase “is a Hebraism, in common use among the ancient Jewish Commentators to designate the whole of anything from the beginning to the end; e.g., ‘Adam transgressed the whole law from Aleph to Tau’ (Jalk. Reub., fol. 17.4).”[1] Although many scholars have concluded that the phrase has something to do with starting and finishing something, or the entirety of something, that understanding is a little misguided. If we notice in this quote from Bullinger, the phrase is quite different. Particularly, the fact that it says, “from Aleph to Tau,” not simply, that the Law is “the Aleph and the Tau.” Perhaps the difference would be even clearer in English. It is quite different to say, “from A to Z,” than to say, “I am the A and the Z.” One communicates the whole of something, namely, the whole alphabet, and the other carries a more ambiguous meaning. Thus, Bullinger’s source does not give us a clear insight into the meaning of the phrase, “the Alpha and Omega” as a title. Continuation 2
For those who wish to correct something in this video, kindly adhere to the fundamental principle of Protestantism,-the Bible and the Bible only as the rule of faith and practice.
I shared my case clearly from the Bible. If you have a correction then bring your evidences, clear and plain, from the Word of God. A “Thus saith the Lord” is the strongest testimony you can possibly present.
🔓 Unlock the Bible's Hidden Treasures! Study with me at www.nadermansour.com/academy. Join now & start your learning journey today! 📖🌟 Deeper Bible study for serious students.
Thank you, Bro Nader for a very excellent explanation of the verse in Matthew that is so misused to try and prove a pagen belief. Great work!
¡THE TRUTH IS CLEAR AND BEAUTIFUL!
Amen ! God bless your ministry brother Nader.
Thank you very much Nader. It is so re assuring. Very well explained.
During my baptism in 2019, I did not allow anyone to speak. I myself said the words: "Lord Jesus, I am a sinner. For my sins I would go to hell. But you died for me on the cross. I now accept you as my Lord and Savior and I believe in your resurrection." Amen. My baptism was miraculous.
wat geweldig ❤
Thanks for that clear presentation.
Especially Acts 2:38 explains clearly Matthew 28:19.
Thank you, Brother Nader!
for this clarification on the parrot-spirit.
Be blessed and walk strong and uncompromised...to the delight and edification of many.
Your Brother Ralph, from Germany....hope to see you next year!!!
Thank you for making things clearer.
So simply baptism is believing the authority of the Father by Jesus and receiving by faith the Spirit of Jesus?
No one goes to the Father but by Jesus Christ, the only way, truth and life Jn 14:6
I do like what you shared when doing your baptism. It perfectly lines up with the commission JESUS gave.
Share the link please of that video or title
Excellent explanation my dear brother in Christ!!
The question that’s needs to be asked have you been born again !!! Of the spirit and the water not of a building or organization
Super!!! Thank You
Amen! Great video
That's it right there, my brother.
In the case of baptism we should not make the Bible contradict itself. Instead we should look for harmony in those statements.
Peter’s emphasis on the name of Jesus is understandable, given that he was speaking to the very same Jews who had before rejected and denied Jesus as their Messiah
“The presence of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the three highest powers in the universe and those in whose name the believer is baptized, is pledged to be with every striving soul.”-Pacific Union Recorder, September 2, 1908.
Correct
Here in this quote you can see beautifully how EGW was writing complete nonsense or vit elsewhere the heavenly trio etc., which absolutely does not fit with the biblical message of the one true God the Father.
Are you a former SDA?
@@Divya65-w2h
It doesn't matter whether I am or am not, but only whether I take the Scriptures seriously and deeply.
I only ask because I'm curious as to what has happened to you.
*Does Matthew 28:19 say the Holy Spirit is a Third Being?*
*Trinitarians often claim Matthew 28:19 supports their belief in a Trinity and the Holy Spirit as a third being. But this verse in no way affirms the Trinity doctrine which states that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three co-equal, co-eternal beings that make up one God.*
*Nobody denies there is the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.*
*But does this verse actually say the HOLY SPIRIT is a THIRD CO-EQUAL BEING? No!*
Act 13-2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
The Holy Spirit seems very much like a person.
You are born unto God, and you stand under the sanction and the power of the three holiest beings in heaven, who are able to keep you from falling. 7MR 267.2
@@randy-b2j2p
KJ2 King James 2000
Acts 4:10-12: "Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him does this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is no other name under heaven given among men, by which we must be saved."
I think it’s important to declare the ‘name’ of our Lord during baptism and not just before or after the ceremony.
Love it. Jesus is the center, Jesus is reason for baptism. If there was no Jesus there would be no baptism . Maranatha
In addition I appreciated you explanation of the parrot syndrome. It is so important to prove to ourselves what the Bible says, not just repeat what others say.
Amen very well said
I really appreciate your depth of Bible understanding. You are truly blessed in your Bible investigative journey. I do have a problem with Matthew 28:19. Eusebius before the time of the Council of Nicea wrote 17 letters quoting this scripture but always said in the name of Jesus. Sometime after Nicea it appears the phrase in the name of the Father, son, and holy spirit crept in to support the trinity. It is a corruption.
Amen brother 🙏
zo heb ik het ook nog nooit horen uitleggen wat is het belangrijk Gods woord goed te lezen en te ontdekken wat er precies staat en wat het betekent
1. What do we know about baptism in the Bible?
- That it was commanded by Jesus and put into practice by the Apostles and the early church John 3:5, Mark 16:15-16. Matthew 28:18-20
- That those who, after hearing and understanding the Gospel, freely chose to become Christians and follow Christ were baptized Acts 2:14-41. Acts 8:5-13...
- That those who believed, repented and confessed their faith in Jesus Christ were immersed in water for the forgiveness of sins Acts 2:38. Acts 8:35-39, Acts 22:16
- That the result of baptism was the reception of salvation, the gift of the Holy Spirit and the addition to the body of the church, to the group of disciples Acts 2:38. Acts 2:41
- That those who had been baptized with another type of baptism were rebaptized with Christian baptism Acts 19:3-5
2. What do we not know about baptism?
We don't know what specific words were used when someone was baptized.
In no example of baptism in the Bible is the formula used or the specific words used described, neither in the case of John the Baptist nor in the case of the disciples, and that should be enough to understand that it is not the formula that is important but the authority.
What gives validity to baptism is not the formula used, not the place where it is done, not the quality of the water and not the value of the person baptizing, but if it is done in the right way and with the right purpose.
According to Acts 2:40 the apostle Peter inspired by the Holy Spirit spoke many more words than those reported by Luke who was also inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote, not as stated in the video.
Neither in Matthew nor in Acts is it about the formula but about the Authority.
Baptism is done in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit or in the name of Jesus Christ if it respects the authority of Jesus, this means that it is done in the specified way, that is, by immersion in water and with the specified purpose, that is, for the forgiveness of sins.
3. The problem with most who insist only on the formula In the Name of Jesus is that they associate this expression with the wrong theory that Jesus is God the Father in the Old Testament, God the Son in the New Testament and God the Holy Spirit in the church age.
God is One: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit and is the same yesterday, today and in the future.
Baptism in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is not Biblical and therefore it is a fraud and none of the apostles baptized in this way.
KJ2 King James 2000
Acts 4:10-12: "Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him does this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is no other name under heaven given among men, by which we must be saved."
I heard a professor say That Matt. 28,19b is added the Bible in the 400 - 500 cencury ! ?
What would be more impoirtant? A sinner accepting Jesus as his new Lord and the forgiver of sins, having his sins washed away in the symbolic death of Baptism and being raised from that to a new life, or the actual words being used in the baptism, respecting that the authority is from God through Jesus, and doing the act by that authority?
Amen. ❤❤❤
Amen indeed
How are you doing family
Amen🎉🎉🎉
Amen
From James White:
“Thus too the exact formula for baptism, Matthew 28:19, though to the best of my knowledge it occurs “only once,” is almost universally admitted to be the only proper one. ARSH July 28, 1863, page 67.3
It is beautifully evident from that statement that J. White has not gone to any trouble to seek the truth, but has relied only on what most people believe erroneously.
@ “not gone to any trouble to seek truth”??? James White, EGWs husband? The pinacle of the false AT movement just exposed the sniveling Mesa - Mansour baptism plan, the SAME James White that ATs desperately idolize. Yeahhhhhhhh
It's as if they deliberately misrepresent us.
Amen!
Amen, baptized in the Lord Jesus Christ’s name.
Acts 2:38 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 8:16 For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they
were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name
of the Lord.Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Acts 19:5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name
of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized,
and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord,
Until the 1970s, all Adventists were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ only, and only after they were baptized in the name of the Roman Catholic Trinity.
In 1900 Adventists were baptised in the threefold name. "“In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, man is laid in his watery grave, buried with Christ in baptism, and raised from the water to live the new life of loyalty to God The three great powers in heaven are witnesses; they are invisible but present.”-Manuscript 57, 1900 (6 Bible Commentary, 1074).
@@Divya65-w2h
I don't believe that. Maybe in some exceptional cases, but not in the entire church.
@mikmak. "We recognize the divine Trinity,-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,-each possessing a distinct and separate personality, but one in nature and in purpose, so welded together in this infinite union that the apostle James speaks of them as "one God." James 2:19
"The doctrine of the trinity is true when rightly understood [or taught in the true way."
--Stephen N. Haskell
Our pioneers believed the same.
@loransay
J.White was an anti-trinitarian and others. However, they still didn't believe quite right biblically. In short, at that time they did not yet have the light from God in this doctrine as we have today.
I don’t understand why Ellen White in many places said the following but you are contradicting her. Please explain why she is wrong?
Did you not receive baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost? These great powers were pledged, these three highest powers in heaven were pledged that every one should keep the promise of their baptism.. 22LtMs, Ms 180, 1907, par. 11-22LtMs, Ms 180, 1907, par. 12
None of the apostles baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit simply because Jesus did not teach anything like that in Matthew, written first in Hebrew, there is not even a word about baptism in 28.19. It only appeared there in Matthew written in Greek.
EGW didn't know that or she wouldn't have written such nonsense.
@ you stated she wrote nonsense I don’t think she did
@@Video4Christians
If EGW writes about a heavenly trio or three powers in heaven, that is a flat-out lie, because the Bible says nothing of the sort!
Acts 10.38 How God anointed Jesus Christ of Nazareth with the holy ghost and with power:
....
In chapter 7 of the Didache, First century Christian handbook to the nation, it clearly gives the format as laid out in Matthew 28. I don’t think your argument holds water to a commandment that has been practiced for nearly 2,000 years. Also stated in the Ante-Nicene Father’s writings.
Some are saved, some are saved to server others. Some are saved to serve God. Repent, Believe, Recieve. Right to become Sons of God
Great commission has nothing to do with the TRINITY Doctrine. 👇🏼
The Great Commission doesn't prove a Trinity or three gods or beings. 🙏🏽
👇
*Christ gave His followers a positive promise* that after His ascension He would send them *HIS SPIRIT.* "Go ye therefore," he said, "and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the *FATHER (A PERSONAL GOD],* and of the *SON [A PERSONAL PRINCE AND SAVIOUR],* and of the *HOLY GHOST (SENT FROM HEAVEN TO REPRESENT CHRIST]:* teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, *lo, am with you alway, even unto the end of the world."* Review & Herald, October 26, 1897, par. 9
_NOTICE how Ellen White did NOT use the word _*_"personal"_*_ for the Holy Ghost!_
The law shall last until that Seed should come... Many believe that since that Seed came the law was done away with. Can you please clear that up in a video? If you have already done so, what is the title? Thanks. My nephew who listens to the daughters of the harlot, has questions.
Que parte le resulta más difíciles
Ain't that it
*The prejudice of the Jews was aroused because the disciples of Jesus did not use the exact words of John in the rite of baptism.* John baptized unto *REPENTANCE,* but the *disciples of Jesus,* on *PROFESSION of the faith*, baptized in the *name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.* The teachings of John were in *perfect harmony with those of Jesus, yet his disciples became jealous for fear his influence was diminishing.* A *dispute arose between them and the disciples of Jesus in regard to the FORM of words proper to use at BAPTISM, and finally as to the right of the latter to baptize at all.* 2SP 136.3
This is an EGW lie, because not one apostle baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit simply because Jesus never taught any such thing. Nor did Jesus baptize anyone with water, but with the Holy Spirit (the spirit of truth), which is far more important than just being baptized with water.
@@mikmark100yes the disciples baptized in the threefold name. EGW was a true prophet. You don’t go questioning the true prophet. If she said it, it’s true! Prophetic Inspiration does not contradict scripture.
@VibrantMarcos
EGW never considered herself a prophet, but a messenger of God, as she said. She was only made a prophet by the Church after her death.
@@VibrantMarcos
EGW and her views are not needed by a true Christian for anything, because he can get by with the Bible alone. EGW is a waste of time for any Christian. Everything we need to know about God is in the Bible.
Pozdrawiam z polski 👍
I recommend to download the PDF file The Baptism In The Name Of Jesus adventistas-historicos
Name in capital letters and it will come up right away
Can't find it
@gracelynfortlightamooti6763
Google it under the same name there are more PDF files, but only one has an extra one at adventistas-historicos, which is also the name of the web site, but it can only be purchased there, but it's not in English there
Or one other similar 6 page file in PDF download, google it:
The Change of the Baptismal Formula in Matthew 28:19
Before the apostles baptize those willing to be their disciple, they should teach them about the name of the father, which is Jehovah or Yahweh, and the name of the Son which is Jesus, and the spirit has no name, because it is the power of the Father, it appeared like dove during Jesus's baptism, and it appeared a top of many followers right after Jesus ascend into heaven as exalted chief prince ,( not God) ,
Their true disciples should preach inlined with apostles beliefs and teachings, since Jesus instructed them this way, " make disciples in all earth, teachings them to do what I teach you,"
Jesus did not say, let them do whatever they want or believed,
Acts, 5:28-32, The apostles preached, That Jehovah or Yahweh, rose Jesus from the dead, ,
Jesus personally and privately revealed this to his apostles, @Mat, 10:26-28/ Mark, 4:34/ Mat, 13:10-11 , which is contradicted .from his figurative Divisive statements to his critics, "destroy this temple, and I rise it in.three days, he is not rose himself but his father,
🤔 Is my Water Immersion Baptism INVALID because I NO 🚫 longer believe in the Triune Trinity Tritheism co-equal co-eternal distinct individual person god ❓
Nobody knows. The important thing is to be sealed by the Holy Spirit, who gives you the truth through the Scriptures. And if you have inwardly accepted the truth of the one true God you are sealed by that Holy Spirit and probably don't necessarily need to be re-baptized. But no one is stopping you from going through it again correctly.
KJ2 King James 2000
Eph 1:12-13: "That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after you believed, you were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise,"
John the Baptist was not baptizing in the name of Jesus.
Whad about Jesus baptism? Formulas dont work, Paul said the human race was baptized in the Red sea, why argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a needle? Why was a tree tossed into the bitter water of Marah?
It's just okay whether you baptized in the name of the Father or in the name of Jesus or in the name of the Holy Spirit. Because both Holy Spirit and Word (Son Jesus) came from God the Father Himself and belongs to God the Father Himself. So these three are One in essence.
Deceived
Brother. I’d like to tell you my highest respect for the wisdom God has given you in many subjects. If we both get to Heaven, I will be one of your stars in your crown because it was through your videos that I accepted the truth regarding the personality of God and of Christ. However, I cannot agree with you here. I think you are making a mistake in several of your arguments. Since you have done this publicly, and I am among those whom you have labeled as fanatical according to how you view this issue, I must respond publicly.
If the HS is part and parcel of the Son then why in the names of the two? Just like to teach in the name of Jesus imply (Act 4:18-20), to baptize in the name of Jesus means to do so strictly according to His instructions given in Mt.28:19. How can you say that the instruction is not the formula? Where then is the template given as explicitly as it is in Mt.28:19? God did not intend that His word is as complicated and implicit as you portray. Note that in Act 8:16 baptism in the name of the Son ONLY was inadequate. Too sad that you are under a deception.
Bro os lost
Study the early church history of the apostolic church
You making a schism heretic
The Word is God also with God John 1:1-2
Beware
@@lionf7224
The Greek word logos has about 20 meanings, and the fact that the three influential translators (which was the majority) chose to translate logos-the word-is their problem, just as it can be translated as purpose, i.e., God's purpose made flesh by Jesus Christ at the end of time.
John 1:14 KJV
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
The Word is clearly Jesus
@loransay
John 1:14a
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. (NIV)
1. The “Word” is the wisdom, plan or purpose of God (see John 1:1) and the Word “became flesh” as Jesus Christ. Thus, Jesus Christ was “the Word in the flesh,” which is shortened to “the Word” for ease of speaking. Scripture is also the Word, but it is the Word in writing. Everyone agrees that the “Word” in writing had a beginning. So did the “Word” in the flesh. In fact, the Greek text of Matthew 1:18 says that very clearly: “Now the beginning of Jesus Christ was in this manner.” Some ancient scribes were so uncomfortable with the idea of Jesus having a “beginning” that they tried to alter the Greek text to read “birth” and not “beginning,” but they were unsuccessful. The modern Greek texts all read “beginning” (genesis) in Matthew 1:18. “Birth” is considered an acceptable translation of “genesis,” since the beginning of some things is birth, and so most translations read “birth” in Matthew 1:18. Nevertheless, the proper understanding of Matthew 1:18 is the “beginning” (genesis) of Jesus Christ.
In the beginning, God had a plan, a purpose, which “became flesh” when Jesus was conceived. To make John 1:14 support the Trinity, there must first be proof that Jesus existed before he was born and was called “the Word.” We do not believe that such proof exists. There is a large body of evidence, however, that Jesus was foreknown by God, and that the “the Word” refers to God’s plan or purpose. We contend that the meaning of the verse is straightforward. God had a plan (the Word) and that plan became flesh when Jesus was conceived. Thus, Jesus became “the Word in the flesh.”
2. It is also important to note that the text does not say, ‘God became flesh,’ nor does it mean that. In the Prologue, “the word” is the plan, or purpose of God, not God himself, it is something different from God throughout the Prologue. It is “with” God in John 1:1b and John 1:2; God sent John the Baptist, “the word” did not send John the Baptist (John 1:6); In John 1:11 believers become children of God, not children of “the word”; In John 1:18, the Son (Jesus, the word) explains God, the Son does not explain himself. It is clear that all throughout the Prologue, “the word” is something different from God, it is not God, therefore, we should not understand John 1:14 to mean ‘God became flesh.’
3. It is quite fair to ask why John would say, “the Word became flesh,” a statement that seems so obvious to us. Of course Jesus Christ was flesh. He was born, grew, ate and slept, and Scripture calls him a man. However, what is clear to us now was not at all clear in the early centuries of the Christian era. In our notes on John 1:1, we explain that the Bible must be understood in the context of the culture in which it was written. At the time of John’s writing, the “Docetic” movement was gaining disciples inside Christianity (“Docetic” comes from the Greek word for “to seem” or “to appear”). Docetic Christians believed Jesus was actually a spirit being, or god, who only “appeared” to be human. Some Docetists did not believe Jesus even actually ate or drank, but only pretended to do so. Furthermore, some Jews thought that Jesus was an angel. In theological literature, theologians today call this “angel-Christology.” John 1:14 was not written to show that Jesus was somehow pre-existent and then became flesh. It was to show that God’s plan for salvation “became flesh,” i.e., Jesus was not a spirit, god or angelic being, but rather a flesh-and-blood man. A very similar thing is said in 1 John 4:2, that if you do not believe Jesus has come in the flesh, you are not of God.
I know many are not so interested in the old Adventist pillars and testimonies these days, but for those that are, please note that this conclusion on baptism would also logically mean that the teachings of the Adventist pioneers, including James and Ellen White, were false, making them heretical in the eyes of God for teaching that the commission was to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, while also plainly stating that baptizing in the name of Jesus alone is erroneous and not the commission which was given by Christ. Logically it would also mean that Ellen White was not inspired by God, or else she would have rebuked the brethren for teaching such errors. And yes, what they taught about this had nothing to do with the trinity, no matter what the corporate church would like you to believe.
"God’s ambassadors, Christ’s true ministers, by the authority of their great commission, baptize ’in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ This not only shows the importance of baptism, but that both the Father and the Son, and also the Holy Spirit, have a part in the conversion of sinners. The Father is our lawgiver, Christ our mediator, and the Holy Spirit our reprover, comforter and sanctifier. God pity those who are converted by a gospel that has only the Son in it, leaving the Father out altogether, and immersion supplying the place of the Holy Spirit.
It is no marvel that ministers of this sort should depart from the language found in the original commission, and baptize their converts in ’the name of the Lord Jesus.’ Happy thought, indeed, to
those who keep the commandments of God, the commandments of Christ, and the commandments of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, and who enjoy the sanctifying peace of the Holy Spirit, that
they have been buried with their divine Lord in baptism, ’in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’” - James White, ARSH, October 31, 1878, p. 140
"The prejudice of the Jews was aroused because the disciples of Jesus did not use the exact words of John in the rite of baptism. John baptized unto repentance, but the disciples of Jesus, on profession of the faith, baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. . .
A dispute arose between them and the disciples of Jesus in regard to the form of words proper to use at baptism, and finally as to the right of the latter to baptize at all. - Spiritual Gifts Vol. 2, p. 136.3
"We are baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Matthew 28:19. By this we express our belief in the existence of the one true God, the mediation of his Son, and the influence of the
Holy Spirit." - Uriah Smith, Bible Student’s Assistant, p. 21.7
"Baptism is a perpetual ordinance in the church, and the ministers of the nineteenth century baptize ‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,’ because the original commission requires it." - James White, ARSH, Feb. 4, 1862, p.76.6
"Because it is said in Acts 2:38; 8:16, and 19:5, that they were baptized in the name of Jesus, some have inferred that the apostles baptized in the name of Christ only. But this conclusion is very lame. To discover the fallacy of this idea, it will only be necessary to examine the terms of the commission under which they acted.
But to conclude thence that they did not obey their Lord’s commandment-that they did not fulfill their commission to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost-is more than the inspired record will warrant." - J. H. Waggoner, Thoughts on Baptism, pp. 62-63
Was EGW familiar with Matthew written in Hebrew where there is no mention of baptism?
Apparently not, according to what she wrote.
That's why she only wrote about what she read in the Bible.
God didn't tell her how to baptize correctly. Why did Adventists baptize only in the name of Jesus Christ until 1970?
Why do many other churches still baptize correctly today?
@@mikmark100 But Matthew was originally written in Koine Greek, not Hebrew, and the Greek reads "βαπτίζω (baptizo)".
Also, what is your source for Seventh-day Adventists baptizing only in the name of Jesus until 1970?
Did you read the pioneer quotes I posted? They baptized exclusively in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and were against baptizing only in the name of Jesus, and this had nothing to do with the trinity, but everything to do with what Jesus commanded. "In the name Jesus" means with the authority of Jesus, it does not refer to the words being used in the baptism itself.
@@RemnantAudio-j8f
In the comments from me you will find two links one of them is from adventistas-historicos to a PDF file free download by name in Czechoslovakia at that time baptism was still in the 70's of the 20th century only in the name of Jesus Christ and the Catholics were terribly bothered by this and asked the Adventists when they would finally change this, which they later did and started baptizing with the later invented Catholic baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
@@mikmark100 But this is not any kind of evidence that the pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist church like James White, Ellen White, J. N. Loughborough, Uriah Smith, John Andrews, Stephen Haskell, J. H. Waggoner etc. did not baptize in the name of the The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. We can see they did from their very own writings again and again. Anyone can access these texts and they make it clear that they did not baptize in the name of Jesus alone, for the reasons that have been mentioned in my earlier posts already. Matthew 28:19 has nothing to do with any kind of a triune god, no matter what the Catholics and apostate Protestants might claim.
What you are referring to seems like one of the many deviations from the Advent faith, which have been happening within Adventism ever since it got started, and keeps happening right now within the Father and Son movement.
There were many kinds of deviations from the established truth within Adventism even during the time of the pioneers, and Ellen White had to write against many of these deviations, like the Holy Flesh movement, which surfaced in the SDA Indiana conference, or the Flat Earth movement, which surfaced in the SDA New York conference. Both of these movements have resurfaced now, and are bringing confusion into it, just like these other deviations like original sin, different baptism or feastkeeping.
If one considers themselves to be a Seventh-day Adventist, they should be very careful when claiming that the pioneers had not studied their Bibles properly and were not led by God as a movement, or did not have a prophet of God amongst them.
@RemnantAudio-j8f
I certainly don't believe EGW was a prophet of God she even copied her first vision from W. Foy and supposedly had it exactly the same as him, which he confirmed when he came to hear it. Foy continued to have visions and wrote a book about it. So it is not at all true that the visions passed from him to EGW as the church claims.
For another EGW never considered himself a prophet, but only a messenger receiving visions from God. It was only after her death that the church made her a prophet at General Conference. She copied much from others and then said it was revealed to her by the Holy Spirit. Read her books once for interest, yes, but otherwise there is no point in taking her seriously because there are a million doubts surrounding her and that doesn't add anything to her credibility it only takes away. The truth is only in the Bible, and that's what every Opavdian should take as a foundation and needs nothing else for salvation.
Yes! We are to baptise in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. That is what Jesus said.
Did you even watch the video?
Jesus said no such thing, read Matthew in the Hebrew in which it was first written. There's nothing in there about baptism, it just says Go. And teach all that I have commanded you. Eusebius saw this beautiful version and the longer one in Greek in his day and confirms it.
I am sorry to say, but brother, you are fulfilling a terrible prophecy (making the Spirit of Prophecy of no effect in these last days).
And around 5:20, you say it yourself: this is how Jesus said we are to baptise. Both the Bible and the published works of EGW (in her lifetime) are clear and simple. There was no need for you to cast darkness and confusion on the matter by producing this video.
Why did Adventists baptize only in the name of Jesus Christ until 1970?
Why do many other churches still baptize correctly today?
@@mikmark100 You can have this grace and this power if you will. But you must educate yourselves in accordance with your baptismal vows. When you took these vows, you pledged yourself, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, that you would live unto God, and you have no right to break this pledge.. RH June 22, 1905, par. 14
What are you talking about? This is from 1905.
@midlertidigjan
EGW was a Methodist Trinitarian from birth. Then she married an anti-Trinitarian, James White, and during his lifetime she hardly wrote on the subject, and after his death the celestial trios, etc. began to appear, assuming she wrote it at all. But it doesn't matter, because she was completely wrong on this compared to what the Bible teaches.
@@mikmark100 I am amazed at your confusion and gently eject myself from this conversation. Come out of her, my people!
@midlertidigjan
This is not confusion, but Biblical truth!
Jesus said " HE" would raise this temple up in three days! Referring to his resurrection. Jesus/ Father and Spirit work in unison, so When the Father is said to have raised Jesus and Jesus is the percice being of the Father it's both acting as one.
Your thinking is absurd... You just can't be presumptuous....
baptize are under the name of father son and holy spirit. not only jesus.
Did you understand the Presentation?
@@gracelynfortlightamooti6763 he talk to much weird unbiblical thing.
Sounds pretty much that you are twisting the scriptures to say what you want it to mean brother?? I believe the words of JESUS are clear and has more authority than Peter.....
They are twisting the scriptures
Jesus said to baptise in the threefold name
I pretty sure you don’t understand the scripture.
That’s why you complain a Nader for his video..
he is totally clear with all his interpretations, I encourage you to see the video about the first sermon of Peter, , after it you will understand everything.
Did Peter disagree with Jesus?
Why did they "disobey" Jesus by baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ? Acts 2:38
More false teachings from this false teacher. Jude 1:25 "To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen"
So if the Father is the only true God and Jesus is the only wise God what is that telling us? It is simply saying that the Oneness of God is not a Oneness in Number but rather, "I pray that the all may be One as We Are ONE. it is s Oneness in UNITY. FATHER, SON AND HOLY GHOST= ONE GOD!!!
Nowhere is it written that Jesus is the only wise God.
@mikmark100 Rev 1:8 " I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty'
If He is the Almighty then He is also all wise!!!
@Jasho-Beam Rev. 1.7 is Jesus and 1.8 is already about God The Father!
@mikmark100 verse 1 is the revelation of Jesus and verse 8 Is Red letters.
@Jasho-Beam
Revelation 22:13
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. (NIV)
The phrase, “the First and the Last,” is a title that is used five times in the Bible, twice in Isaiah of God (Isa. 44:6; 48:12) and three times in Revelation of the Son (Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13). Trinitarians sometimes make the assumption that since the same title applies to both the Father and the Son, they must both be God. However, there is no biblical justification on which to base that assumption. When the whole of Scripture is studied, one sees that the same titles are used for God, Christ and men. Examples include “Lord” (see Rom. 10:9) and “Savior” (see Luke 1:47) and “King of kings” (Ezra 7:12; see 1 Tim. 6:14-16). If other titles apply to God, Christ and men without making all of them into “one God,” then there is no reason to assume that this particular title would mean they were one God unless Scripture specifically told us so, which it does not.
Let us look more closely at these titles to try and understand their meaning. Since, all three phrases, “the First and the Last,” “the Beginning and the End,” and “the Alpha and the Omega,” are so similar and all are said of Jesus in Revelation 22:13, we will treat them as essentially the same in meaning.
So, what is the meaning of these titles when God is described as “the Alpha and the Omega” or “the First and the Last”? Although there is no evidence from the historical sources that anyone is named “the Alpha and the Omega,” Bullinger says that the phrase “is a Hebraism, in common use among the ancient Jewish Commentators to designate the whole of anything from the beginning to the end; e.g., ‘Adam transgressed the whole law from Aleph to Tau’ (Jalk. Reub., fol. 17.4).”[1] Although many scholars have concluded that the phrase has something to do with starting and finishing something, or the entirety of something, that understanding is a little misguided. If we notice in this quote from Bullinger, the phrase is quite different. Particularly, the fact that it says, “from Aleph to Tau,” not simply, that the Law is “the Aleph and the Tau.” Perhaps the difference would be even clearer in English. It is quite different to say, “from A to Z,” than to say, “I am the A and the Z.” One communicates the whole of something, namely, the whole alphabet, and the other carries a more ambiguous meaning. Thus, Bullinger’s source does not give us a clear insight into the meaning of the phrase, “the Alpha and Omega” as a title.
Continuation 2
Amen 🙏🏽