Do we need to believe in the Trinity to be saved?

[jas3]

What about if we try Eusebius's text he had instead,.....

I thought you said manuscript evidence didn't matter, and that all of the manuscripts had been forged anyway. If you can argue with Eusebius's text, then I can argue with the Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which are contemporary with Eusebius and contain the trinitarian "long form" of Matthew 28:19. I can also argue with the Didache, and Tertullian's On Baptism which cites Matthew 28:19 about a hundred years earlier than your quote from Eusebius, as well as a variety of other early writers. You, on the other hand, can't find a single writer other than Eusebius to support your claim against the verse's authenticity, because there are none.

 

[ARBITER01]

I thought you said manuscript evidence didn't matter, and that all of the manuscripts had been forged anyway. If you can argue with Eusebius's text, then I can argue with the Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which are contemporary with Eusebius and contain the trinitarian "long form" of Matthew 28:19. I can also argue with the Didache, and Tertullian's On Baptism which cites Matthew 28:19 about a hundred years earlier than your quote from Eusebius, as well as a variety of other early writers. You, on the other hand, can't find a single writer other than Eusebius to support your claim against the verse's authenticity, because there are none.

I'm just pointing out what is obvious....

- None of our apostles or disciples every used the triune formula when they immersed a person, and there were plenty of times to do so.

- Most of those times that water immersion happened in acts, the name of Jesus or the name of The Lord (ie Jesus) was used.

- Everything was centered around the name of Jesus. Everything that Jesus mentioned in the gospels was centered around the use of His name.

To me, what Greek manuscripts that do actually have the ending of Matthew are forgeries, corrupt sections, simply because it does not agree with the body of scripture.

I'd rather use the quote from the manuscript that Eusebius had, at least I would know it would agree with scripture.

 

[ARBITER01]

In mentioning the use of the name of Jesus, let us look to see if there was ever a usage of the triune name by Him,....

Matt. 18:5 - And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

Matt. 18:20 - For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Matt. 24:5 - For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Mark 9:37 - Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.

Mark 9:39 - But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.

Mark 9:41 - For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

Mark 13:6 - For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Mark 16:17 - And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Luke 9:48 - And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.

Luke 21:8 - And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

John 14:13 - And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

John 14:14 - If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

John 14:26 - But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:16 - Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

John 16:23 - And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

John 16:24 - Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.

John 16:26 - At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:


In everyone of the gospels is recorded the statements from Jesus in utilizing His name. We were given His name to use, not a triune formula.

 

[jas3]

To me, what Greek manuscripts that do actually have the ending of Matthew are forgeries, corrupt sections, simply because it does not agree with the body of scripture.

This is a circular argument.

I'd rather use the quote from the manuscript that Eusebius had, at least I would know it would agree with scripture.

The manuscript likely never existed - Eusebius was known to abbreviate verses of Scripture, and he quoted the trinitarian form multiple times in his other writings (details here).

In everyone of the gospels is recorded the statements from Jesus in utilizing His name.

These are irrelevant to the authenticity of a formula that is attested to in the first century.

 

[ARBITER01]

This is a circular argument.

Actually, it appears to be the truth,...


BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA

11TH edition, Vol 3, Pg 365-366

The baptismal formula was changed from the name of JESUS CHRIST to the words Father, Son, & Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church in the second century.

________________________________________


BRITANNICA ENCYCLOPEDIA

Vol 3, Pg 82

Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ.

________________________________________


CANNEY ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION

Pg 53

The early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century.

________________________________________


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

Vol 2, Pg 263

Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church.

________________________________________


HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA

OF RELIGION

Vol 2, Pg 377

Christian baptism was administered using the words “In the name of Jesus”.

Vol 2, Pg 378

The use of a Trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in early Church history.

Vol 2, Pg 389

Baptism was always in the name of Lord Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr when Triune formula was used.

________________________________________


CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

Vol 8

Justin Martyr was one of the early Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church.

________________________________________


HASTINGS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGION

Vol 2, Pg 377 on ACTS 2:38

NAME was an ancient synonym for “person”. Payment was always made in the name of some person referring ownership. Therefore one being baptized in Jesus Name became his personal property. “Ye are Christ’s.”

________________________________________


NEW INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA

Vol 22, Pg 477

The term “Trinity” was originated by Tertullian, a Roman Catholic Church Father.

________________________________________


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)….

________________________________________


INTERPRETERS 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 the Lord Jesus’.

________________________________________


A HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT (Otto Heick)

(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 Ghost.

________________________________________


HASTINGS DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE

(1898), I, 241

[One explanation is that] the original form of words was ‘into the name of Jesus Christ’. Baptism into the name of the Trinity was a later development.

________________________________________


A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

Williston Walker, (1947), Pg 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), Pg 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 edition, (1910), Vol 2, Pg 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 wide spread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid.


It was sort of interesting finding different aspects about this when I started looking into it. I guess it was well known that the Catholic church changed things up, which would answer what happened to the ending of Matthew in scripture, they either got rid of the ending from manuscripts or forged new ones.

 

[zoidar]

I think you're missing the point of those sections of scripture,.... the triune formula was not used.

It was never used by anyone in scripture even though that was supposedly a commandment from Jesus before He ascended.

I only commented on Ac 8:12 and Ac 22:16, where it does not say.

 

[ARBITER01]

I only commented on Ac 8:12 and Ac 22:16, where it does not say.

I'm not understanding your question and I don't think you're understanding my response.

 

[zoidar]

I'm not understanding your question and I don't think you're understanding my response.

I understand your response. I just think if you are to prove the Trinitarian formula wrong you shouldn't use verses where there is no mentioning of the kind of baptismal formula used.

 

[ARBITER01]

I understand your response. I just think if you are to prove the Trinitarian formula wrong you shouldn't use verses where there is no mentioning of the kind of baptismal formula used.

I understand your concern, but those two places mentioned water immersion and The Lord (Jesus), and again, no usage of the triune formula was found.

They may not be quite as direct about the subject as the other areas I posted, but they are still areas that have relevance.

 

[ARBITER01]

The ending of Matthew is not the only area where people played around with, another good one is 1 John 5:7. That is certainly an area where quotes from church fathers expose the foul play in the texts. A lot of people went about pruning that section out of the Greek over the years.

In fact, doing a comparison between the early texts and the later texts shows the pruning that happened as well as the additions that crept in over the years of copying.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

I do not think any word not in scripture should be required for salvation.
I have an issue with doctrines and teachings that must be presented in an extra-Biblical framework and defined by a word(s) not found in Scripture. Both "rapture" and "trinity" are included on this list. I most certainly believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But don't force me to use the trinity concept to label this. There is baggage that is included I cannot ascribe to. I think that is why the extra-Biblical word was added. The inventors of these doctrines wanted to add things to the scriptural concepts, so they framed them in the context of their non-Biblical words.

 

[Grafted In]

How can a person understand any of the things of God prior to becoming born again, wilhout the Holy Spirit, let alone have the wherewithal to understand the Trinity?
As I understand it, we are given a gift of faith that can only allow us to believe unto salvation. Then we have Christ in us and we can begin to understand such things that even well studied believers, strong in faith struggle with.

 

[Lukaris]

There is much support for the Trinitarian scripture of 1 John 5:7. This is the fulfilled meaning of Deuteronomy 6:4. The Lord said, “Father, Son, & Holy Spirit” in Matthew 28:19. The Holy Spirit was continually revealed as the finisher in baptism in Acts ( for ex. the Samaritans in Acts 8:14-17). St. Paul attests to the gifts of the Spirit from being baptized in the Spirit ( see 1 Corinthians 12:13 then read 1 Corinthians 12:1-13, note also 1 Corinthians 12:3).

information on 1 John 5:7

1 John 5:7 - Textus Receptus

textus-receptus.com

 

[Jonaitis]

To start off I want to say I do believe in the Trinity. This thread is not here to prove the Trinity right or wrong, which I believe is against the rules of the forum anyway. The question is if we need to believe in the Trinity to be saved?

If a person trusts in Jesus for his salvation, believes Jesus paid the price for his sins on the cross, believes Jesus is God's only son, but doesn't believe Jesus was God incarnate, on what basis can we say he isn't saved?

There were many pre-Nicene Christians that did not have a developed idea about the Trinity. It seemed to have been enforced as an essential doctrinal standard post-Nicene when Nicene Christianity became prominent in the Roman Empire, drawing out all who dissented as heretics. How would God judge that?

 

[The Liturgist]

Actually it was made by the Church. Long before all these other groups cropped up.

Indeed, and it is fully Scriptural. Matthew 28:19 requires that we baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Also, those who would say one could baptize in the name of Jesus Christ without mentioning the Father and the Holy Ghost are ignoring the obvious fact that if we baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, we have baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, since He is the Son, whereas if we do not use the Trinitarian formula we are disobeying the express instructions of canonical scripture. So if the longer ending of Mark is authentic, and its canonicity has been challenged, it is still satisfied with regards to baptism by using the Trinitarian formula, whereas the reverse is not the case.

 

[The Liturgist]

Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds?

The wisdom of God is folly to the World.

From my perspective, not following what our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ instructed in His own voice in the last verse of the Gospel According to St. Matthew is inconceivable.

 

[The Liturgist]

There were many pre-Nicene Christians that did not have a developed idea about the Trinity. It seemed to have been enforced as an essential doctrinal standard post-Nicene when Nicene Christianity became prominent in the Roman Empire, drawing out all who dissented as heretics. How would God judge that?

You have it backwards. The Arians, who rejected the Trinity, ruled the Roman Empire from the beginning of the reign of Emperor Constantius until the death of Emperor Valens, except during a brief interlude under the neo-Platonist Julian. During that time, the Nicene Fathers such as St. Athanasius were aggressively persecuted. Even after the Trinitarian Emperor St. Theodosius came to power, occasional persecution of Nicene Christians happened in the Roman Empire, and since Arius had spread his false gospel to the Visigoths and other Gothic tribes, as the Empire collapsed, the Trinitarians were once again brutally persecuted by the Arians, many of whom later converted to Islam: in North Africa, Visigothic converts to Islam were partially responsible for the complete genocide of the churches in what is now Tunisia, Algeria and Morrocco.

 

[ARBITER01]

The wisdom of God is folly to the World.

That's exactly correct.

Some people actually received The Holy Spirit and are led by Him, others think they have Him when they don't, and are continually fooled by people and their lies, even the ones that are written down.

 

[The Liturgist]

That's exactly correct.

Some people actually received The Holy Spirit and are led by Him, others think they have Him when they don't, and are continually fooled by people and their lies, even the ones that are written down.

Presumably you adhere to Oneness Pentecostalism?

 

[ARBITER01]

Presumably you adhere to Oneness Pentecostalism?

No I don't.

I'm an Assemblies of GOD, blood bought, Spirit-filled, tongue speaking, born again Christian. It's just that I was water immersed in the name of Jesus like our apostles were instead of in accordance with some statement that has no relevance with other scripture.