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.
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.
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.
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?
*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
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.
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
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.
*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
🤔 Is my Water Immersion Baptism INVALID because I NO 🚫 longer believe in the Triune Trinity Tritheism co-equal co-eternal distinct individual person god ❓
@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
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!_
@@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 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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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!
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 ❤
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
Amen ! God bless your ministry brother Nader.
Thank you very much Nader. It is so re assuring. Very well explained.
Thank you for making things clearer.
Excellent explanation my dear brother in Christ!!
Thanks for that clear presentation.
Especially Acts 2:38 explains clearly Matthew 28:19.
That's it right there, my brother.
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.
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?
@@loransay
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.
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
Amen! Great video
I think it’s important to declare the ‘name’ of our Lord during baptism and not just before or after the ceremony.
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
Super!!! Thank You
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?
*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
Amen. ❤❤❤
Amen brother 🙏
Amen🎉🎉🎉
It's as if they deliberately misrepresent us.
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.
Amen!
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
Que parte le resulta más difíciles
Some are saved, some are saved to server others. Some are saved to serve God. Repent, Believe, Recieve. Right to become Sons of God
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).
@@loransay
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.
Acts 10.38 How God anointed Jesus Christ of Nazareth with the holy ghost and with power:
....
Pozdrawiam z polski 👍
*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
Deceived
🤔 Is my Water Immersion Baptism INVALID because I NO 🚫 longer believe in the Triune Trinity Tritheism co-equal co-eternal distinct individual person god ❓
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
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!_
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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?
Amen 🙏🏽