Matthew 28:18-19 (NIV)
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Acts 2:38(KJV)
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..."
Peter said at another time, (quoting from the prophet Joel), "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh."
We are fortunate to be living in the day when we are seeing this great prophecy of God taking place before our very eyes. Ever since the turn of the century when this latest outpouring of God's Holy Spirit began, millions have come to know the mighty power of the Pentecostal experience.
Some may prefer to term this the Charismatic experience, others the Holy Ghost experience, and still others the Pentecostal experience. The terminology doesn't matter, we're all referring to the reality of being baptized in the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues as the Spirit gives the utterance. For the sake of simplicity I will refer to this throughout the rest of this message, as the Pentecostal experience.
A common Doctrine?
The other day I was asked, "Do all Pentecostal people think of believe alike?" I believe what was really being asked was, "Do all people who have experienced the Baptism in the Holy Ghost accept standard 'doctrines'?"
I think, in the basics of Christian faith, all Pentecostals do accept the same fundamental doctrines. I'm referring of course to repentance, salvation through the blood, and the Baptism in the Holy Spirit as described in Acts 2:4
If you will read our tenants of faith you will see how similar it is to the tenets of faith of almost all major denominations. (Members of certain "modern" churches might be surprised to find that these are the basics of their faith ;but nevertheless ,most churches can at least find them among their formal organizational papers.)
Beyond these basic of faith, many modern churches do diverge in their theology to a great extent, while almost a Pentecostal believers find themselves in close agreement on most question of scriptural interpretation. There is a Pentecostal group which does however, diverge from the generally accepted Pentecostal position. This group is known as the Jesus Only people, or Oneness. Technically they are call the United Pentecostals and sometimes they are referred to as New Issue.
While the Oneness people have not shown anywhere near the growth of the average Pentecostal group, they are gaining adherents. What disturbs me about this situation is that I suspect is primarily fear which is bringing new members into their fold. You see, the basis of their teaching is that if you are not baptized by their method--and do not accept their doctrines--you are not saved, nor are you a member of the Body of Christ.
Here again we have a body of believers who are good, upstanding, well-motivated people. It might well be asked, "If they are Christians and want to do what's right, how can they go so far wrong in their doctrine?" The answer, of course, is that even the best motivated of heats can stumble when the head leads it down an errant path. I believe their motivation is right, while their performance is in error.
Should we chance divisiveness by discussing the doctrinal misconceptions they promote? While I shun argument for the sake of argument, I feel I should. This is not a simple matter "of to each his own." The Word of God is given to us to be our staff against the world, our strength, and our guide to proper doctrine. The Word tells us to rightly divide the Word (2Timothy 2:15) for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, and for sound doctrine!(2 Timothy 3:16)
God gave us His Word so we could, through study and application, develop sound doctrine. Admittedly, all fall short of complete knowledge of God's intent for us in this day. I believe God deliberately left some fine points obscured so we would have to study His Word as an ongoing and perpetual component of our Christian Life. I do feel, however, that there is a difference between freedom to search out God's meaning from His Word and license to promote doctrines which are barely suggested within the Word.
ORIGIN
The "New Issue" erupted within the Pentecostal movement about 1914. While it started as a friendly debate of the question of the correct method for water baptism, it quickly developed into a fierce controversy over the nature of the Godhead. The argument in those early days was basically of the effort to reconcile the words of the Lord in Matthew 28:19 and Peter's words in Acts 2:38. Suddenly the thing exploded. Those who practiced baptism in the name of Jesus Christ (Jesus Only) claimed a special revelation from the Lord which would result in the correct manner of water baptism. And what was this tremendous, tradition-defying revelation?
In effect it was this: Peter introduced the new baptismal method at Pentecost because supposedly, the Holy Ghost had revealed unto him that the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is Jesus Christ. In other words, their "revelation" was that there is only one person in the Godhead and that is Jesus Christ. They also vehemently opposed the doctrine of the Trinity, claiming it was of human origin.
The argument became more heated, the controversy more explosive, and the split grew wider.
1. Three Gods or One?
We teach there is one God manifest in three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The Jesus Only people teach that Jesus Christ is the Father, He is the Son, and He is the Holy Spirit. Hence the name, Jesus only. I believe we can provide proper evidence from the Word of God that this is not the case and that the teaching advanced by these people is erroneous and does not accord proper due and honor to the Godhead.
The scripture does state there is one God. But the word "one" relates to unity as well as number. 1 John 5:7clearly means one in unity, as does John 17:11-21.And yet there are three distinct persons: the Father, The Word, and the Holy Spirit. The three are spoken of as one in number and yet treated individually in Scripture. There is one God, the Father, One Lord Jesus Christ, and one Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 8:6;Ephesians 4:3-6).Thus there are three separate persons in divine individuality and divine plurality. The Father is called God (1 Cor. and the Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:34). Individually, each is called God; collectively, that can be spoken of as one God because of their perfect unity. The word "God" can be used either in the singular or in the plural, like sheep. Everything that could pertain to God collectively could also apply equally to each member of the Godhead as individuals. However, there are some particulars which relate to each individual person of the deity as to position, office, and work that could not be attributed to either of the other members of the Godhead. For instance, the Father is the head of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:3).The Son is the only begotten of the Father (2 John 1:3). The Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son (John 14:16;Acts 2:3-4).
ELOHIM
The names of God prove plurality of persons. The Hebrew word ELOHIM, translated "God" in Genesis 1:1 and also in more than 2700 other places in the Old Testament, is a uniplural noun, which means "more than one. Had the sacred writer been led to use the singular4 El, then there would have been no indication of a divine plurality. But in this initial reference to God, he was led of the Holy Spirit to pen the word Elohim (Genesis1:1).Also when one considers that the word Elohim is used about ten to one of the word El, we would have to conclude that this preference for the plural over the singular indicated a definite sign of plurality in the Godhead.
Plurality in Scriptures
Genesis 3:22, where it says "the man has become as one of us" proves plurality of persons by the use of the pronoun "us." Two Lords are mentioned in Genesis 19:24--one on earth and one in heaven. Two Lords sit side by side in Psalms 110:1-5, in Matthew 22:44,and in Acts 2:33-34,36. Two and three persons are mentioned in the introductions to many New Testament books: Romans, James 1 Cor., 1 Peter , to name a few.
Jesus is not the Father.
Only one Scripture in the Word of god states that Jesus is the Father., This is found in Isaiah Chapter 9 and it is a Hebrew idiom concerning the terminology of the Jews. And, we know(from Scripture) that Christ now sits at the right hand of the Father. Jesus said He would confess men before His Father which was in heaven, proving He (Jesus) is not Himself the Father (Matthew) 10:32: Revelation 3:5).Jesus always prayed to the Father as a separate person (Matthew 11:25). Both Jesus and Satan refer to God apart from Jesus (Matthew 4:6-10.Jesus was the only begotten Son of the Father. Hence, Jesus could not be the Father, nor could He beget Himself (John 1:14). Over 80 times in the Word of God Jesus affirmed that He was not the Father, nor was He the only person in the Godhead.
We do not understand everything about the Trinity. However, it does become somewhat less confusing and mysterious if we don't try to force two or more separate Persons into becoming only one Person, simply because we choose not to recognize that the true meaning of the word "one" actually refers to unity. So what we have is, only one Scripture (easily explained) in the Old Testament stating that Jesus is the Father, and so very, very many confirming that He is not the Father.
The Holy Spirit is NOT Jesus or the Father!
The Holy Spirit is another and He is from both the Father and the Son (John 5:32). So that the Holy Spirit could come, it was necessary that Jesus go away (John 16:5-15). Even then, though, He could not be sent from God until Christ was glorified. But, at that time He would be sent from both the Father and the Son (John 7:37-39). The Holy Spirit was sent from the Father to endue Jesus with power. This clearly required three persons--the One who sent Him, the One being sent, and the One who received Him!
A clear distinction is made between the Son who prays, the Father to whom He prays, and the Holy Spirit for whom (which)He prays (John 14:16).
The descent of the Holy Spirit acknowledged the arrival of Jesus in heaven to sit at the right hand of God, thus proving three separate and distinct persons(Acts 2:33-34; John 7:39).
So what do we have? Jesus is God; the Holy Spirit is God; the Father is God. But Jesus is not the Holy Spirit; Jesus is not the Father. And neither is the Father the Lord Jesus Christ; nor is the Father the Holy Spirit.
The Scriptural passages which provide the basis for the Trinitarian doctrine cannot be reconciled to the Jesus Only position without totally disregarding the meaning of language and without totally ignoring many contrary Scriptures. On the other hand, the favorite Jesus Only Passages can be reconciled without strain or contradiction to the Trinitarian position.
Holy, holy, holy
Lord God Almighty!
Early in the morning
our song shall rise to Thee;
Holy, holy, holy
Merciful and mighty
God in three persons,
blessed Trinity
Holy, holy, holy
All the Saints adore Thee,
Casting down their golden
Crowns around the glassy sea:
Cherubim and seraphim
Falling down before Thee,
Which were, and are and ever
more shall be.
The Created Being Theory
The Jesus Only people have to a great extent embraced an ancient anti-Trinitarian refuge called Arianism. This is a heresy named after its most prominent advocate, Arius, propagated in the years 256-336. Arius was a presbyter of Alexandria, whose principle factor was that the son was of the same substance with the father. l In other words, although Jesus Christ was existent before the World, He was reduced to the rank of a creature. This doctrine is somewhat embraced by Jesus Only people. One of their writers some years ago, C.H. Yadon, wrote, "The Son of God is the first and greatest being--only begotten of the Father, dwelling in whom, and through whom, as the instrument, God, the Father, performed the work of creation. He was in effect the very first created being. He was with God so thus was not God, and yet He was God."
I am convinced this statement is totally contradictory in concept, and actually blasphemous. What they are saying is this: Jesus Christ was a created being; He was an angel, actually, although He was the highest-ranking angel ever created. One even called Him "the angel Michael."
So you can see from this, the doctrinal cleavage between Jesus Only and Trinitarian believers is far more serious than abstract theological question of little significance.
The Formula For Water Baptism (Matthew 28:19; Acts2:38)
Trinitarians baptize according to Matthew 28:19, using the words of the Lord Jesus Christ where He said that we should baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. We do this for many reasons and I will go into many of the details concerning the differences between the two baptismal formulas.
The Jesus Only people affirm that the Matthew 28:19 method is not once found in the book of Acts and was unknown in the early church, but was introduced centuries later by apostates in total disregard of apostolic practice. Trinitarians are, therefore admonished to conform to scriptural pattern and to follow the example of those who had the true "revelation" of the name. This is taken to mean that unless one is baptized in the name of Jesus, they cannot be forgiven their sins, etc. (I think this is the sum total of the Jesus Only doctrine concerning the method of water baptism).
The Jesus Only people claim that the words Father and Son do not constitute names. We maintain they do. We believe that Matthew 28:19 definitely confirms that "Father" is a name, that "Son" is a name, that "Holy Spirit" is a name, simply because we are not generalizing just any father or just any son. We are talking about God the Father, and God the Son; and most anyone in Christendom today would readily recognize and know ho is being spoken of.
In Isaiah 9:6 the Bible says His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Each one of these appellations would be labeled a title by Jesus Only interpreters, but Isaiah's text calls each one a name. This is also the one verse of Scripture in the entire Word where Jesus Christ is called the Father, and still, somehow these people are blinded to the fact that the verse actually disproves their theory concerning titles and names, simply because it gives the name of "Father" to Jesus.
So I am simply asking a question, According to Isaiah, Isn't "Wonderful" a name? Isn't "Prince of Peace" a name? Isaiah uses five different names here and yet, under divine inspiration, he specifically chose the singular when he said, "And His name shall be called..."
So what more needs to be said in answer to this strange insistence that if "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" are names (plural), then Matthew 28:19 should read in the names of? The writers, under divine inspiration, used the singular instead of the plural. They did it for a divine reason.
The Book of Acts and Baptismal Formula.
There is not a single in incident in the book of Acts where any particular baptismal formula is given. There is no record of the dialogue of the baptizer while standing in the water with the convert. You can look in vain for any Scripture which state, "baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ" (of any other variation of the precious name of our Lord). I f one can produce such an explicit procedure, I would be thrilled to admit that we have a scriptural right to baptize thus, but it cannot be produced. It doesn't exist.
This immeasurably weakens the Jesus Only position. They have read into the record that which is not there. They have taken the words of Peter, assumed that they were they properly expressed formula, and placed them onto the lips of those who baptized in water--without a shred of evidence to support their action. The JESUS ONLY proponents claim that Acts 2:38 is the baptismal formula. And yet Acts 8:16 and Acts 19:5 simply state they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And if you will notice, in these two latter versed the word "Christ" was omitted altogether.
If Peter, on the day of Pentecost, received a baptism "revelations" which the JESUS ONLY proponents claim is "in the name of Jesus Christ," Why, we ask, is this later variation produced? You see, there is no fixed wording to follow and there is no regular or prescribed usage of certain words.
So the question has to be asked, should we baptize in the name Jesus Christ, or in Christ Jesus, or in the Lord, of in the Lord Jesus Christ? Which would be correct? Was Peter right? Or Philip? Or Paul?
JESUS ONLY exponents say they are sticklers (fanatics)for the exact words of Scripture, and that they use the identical words of the apostles; yet their demands are not accompanied by quotations from God's Word of the words themselves. Even in those passages where their purported words are found, their full formula is lacking. One of their chief proponents some years ago stated that the following formula should be used: "I baptize you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." When this particular brother was asked to cite chapter and verse for this formula, he was speechless. Apparently it had not ever occurred to him that the formula he had conjured up had no scriptural connotations whatsoever.
So the question still must be asked. Which is the right way to baptize and what was the meaning of Peter's or Paul's words in the book of Acts.
There is no way one can take the passages in the book of Acts to be intended as a baptismal formula. The words should be regarded as a compendious description of the entire rite. In Acts 2:38,8:16;10:48; and 19:15, the details of the baptismal ceremony are not set forth. What is set forth is a condensed, brief, abridged reference to a sacred experience. The words describe the sphere, the foundation or ground of baptism, rather than the prescribed words of the formula.
Every Trinitarian using the Matthew 28:19 formula refers to water baptism as "Christian baptism" and this is as it should be for Christ is assuredly the central figure in water baptism. Jesus Christ, is the One who died and rose again, not the Father, and not the Holy Spirit. It is into His death that we are symbolically buried, and in the likeness of His resurrection we are raised to walk in newness of life; therefore, belief in, and confession of the Lord Jesus Christ is a part of our baptismal ceremony.
This is the Reason We Accept The Matthew 28:19 Baptismal Formula
A. Both the minister and the believer render obedience to the Master's own explicit command whenever the words are used, "in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
B. Matthew 28:19 fits the definition of a formula. It is an orderly statement of faith or doctrine. It is the prescribed words of a
ceremony or rite. The words of the Lord Himself are all contained in one concise declaration. It is not necessary, as it is for the
Jesus Only formula, to combine it with other Scriptures in order to get the complete name. It is completed within itself.
C. Matthew 29:19 incorporates an orderly statement of faith. It summarizes the scattered and unsystemized thought and language of
the entire New Testament concerning the nature of the Godhead. He who spoke these words desired their use as the formula for
they were purposely designed to set forth the doctrine of the Trinity in this initiatory Christian right. The Master's own baptism by
John was a vivid precedent for associating the Trinity with baptism. John was there in person. God spoke from heaven and the Holy
Spirit descended like a dove upon Him.
D. Matthew 28:19 is the only command in the entire Bible given specifically to those performing the right of baptism. If you will
examine all the passages in Acts dealing with baptism, you will discover that the commands were all to the believers themselves
and not to the baptizer, or the minister. Matthew 28:19 is a direct order to those who administer the ordinance, informing them to
baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
E. It is unthinkable that the disciples disobeyed the express command of their Lord. The only logical and scriptural conclusion is that
the apostles and other leaders not only obeyed His command to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit.
F. The Matthew 28:19 baptismal formula is abundantly confirmed by the earliest Christian writings while the Jesus Only formula has
no support at all. Justine's first apology was written in A.D.153 about 90 years after the death of Peter and Paul. It was about
60years after the death of John the apostle. Justine was a contemporary of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John himself, and he
stated that Matthew 28:19 was the correct formula.
There is another book called The Teaching Of The Twelve Apostles and it is the oldest book outside the New Testament. It is also
known as the Didache and is dated by most authorities between the yearsA.D.70 and 100. Although the author of the book is
unknown, it s a compilation of the teaching of the apostles which he had apparently learned either by personal instruction, and oral
tradition, or through their (the apostles) own writings or other New Testament writings then in circulation. l While it does not
possess the inspiration of the Scriptures, The Didache is an authentic record of primitive Christianity. It included as instructions for
baptizing that we ought to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and also that we ought to
baptize in living or running water. There again, the Matthew 28:19 formula is used. And, lest we forget, I remind you that there is
not a single, recorded incident in the Bible or any other genuine first-Century book where any other formula was ever used in the
first 100 years of the Christian era.
G. Matthew 28:19 can be used as the formula and the baptism still be in the name of Jesus Christ, because the Son is Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is the sphere, the foundation, and the ground for Trinitarian baptism. Belief in and confession of Christ is the very
heart of our baptism. Consequently, the words spoken by most ministers of the Gospel, baptizing according to Matthew
28:19,followsthis pattern: "On the confession of your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
DOES THE WATER SAVE?
The Jesus Only proponents basically teach baptismal regeneration. In other words, the water saves. This teaching, plus the implication that if one is not baptized in the name of Jesus only (or similar expression), is a most effective means of frightening people into accepting the Jesus Only doctrine. These people are taught that if they are not baptized in this manner their sins cannot be forgiven, and they will be lost and burn in hell eternally.
Most Trinitarians believe water baptism to be a simple step of obedience to the Lord. We believe in immersion, seeing the meaning of the word "baptized" as being a symbol of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We believe that water baptism is not so much as some would make it, nor so little as others would make it. The Lord Himself defined its purpose: to fulfill all righteousness. It is our Christian duty to be baptized. It is also our joyous privilege to testify publicly by the act of baptism that Jesus Christ is our Savior and Lord. Nevertheless, we cannot attach the same importance to water baptism that some legalists such as the Jesus Only advocates do. We would not attempt to exclude from the kingdom all those who have not been baptized in the precise manner which we deem scriptural. The pages of church history are filled with the names of men whose baptism in water we may regard as incorrect, but whose lives and ministries testify to an unquestionable experience with God. Yet, many Jesus Only adherents state and believe if individuals have not been baptized according to the Jesus Only formula, they are not even considered saved. Some would make the statement that they are not "fully saved." Of course it is difficult to understand at all how a person can be partially saved.
We, maintain, apart from the definite spiritual and scriptural relationship with the Lord, there is no virtue in the waters of baptism; or in the bread and wine, for that matter, of the Lord's supper. In Acts 22:16, if when Paul used the term "wash away thy sins" and this means the water will actually save a person, it would seem strange that Paul would say, "I think God that I only baptized a few of you believers. "It would seem odd that He would deliberately refuse to administer baptism to most of the people he was addressing when it was so important as to wash away their sins. No. Baptism was a symbol of what it represented.
What is it that washes away sins? The blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, Cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7). Sin is, basically, an inner state which may or may not express itself outwardly. It stand to reason that no mere outward work like baptism can remove that which is inward. Also, water is a scriptural symbol for the Word (used in Ephesians 5:26; Psalms 119:9;John 15:3). Consequently, I would have to conclude that John 3:5 (where Jesus said" born of water"), if interpreted in harmony with all other Scriptures, must refer to being "born of the Word." Jesus, in His discussion with Nicodemus, mentioned being born of water only one time, and He never explained fully. However, during the same discussion, He repeated the word believe 5 times. I would ask the question: If water saves, what type of water should be used--tap water, running water, still water, deep water, shallow water, river water, or what type of water? What would happen if there was no water in which to administer the sacred right? Would that mean a person would be consigned to hell forever, even though he had believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, but yet there was no water there for him to be baptized in, and that individual was dying? What happened to the if on the cross when Jesus turned to him and said, "This day you will be with me in Paradise." There was no way for him to be baptized. Did he die and go to hell? Certainly not! Water has never begotten anyone. Water is water, whether it's flowing water, still, water, baptismal water, or holy water. Only believing in the Lord Jesus Christ makes one born of God(Eph.2:8), "For by grace are you saved through faith...It is not of works, lest any man should boast."
3. The Tongues Question
We teach and preach that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is an experience subsequent to salvation. And we believe when one received the baptism in the Holy Spirit according to Acts 2:4, that he speaks with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives the utterance.
However, while we cherish the baptism in the Spirit, we must reject the insistence of the Jesus Only people that the experience is necessary for salvation. We cannon accept the view that "born of the spirit" in John 3:5 refers to the experience depicted in Matt. 3:11.We believe that the baptism in the Spirit is a part of our salvation but so is divine hearing and while this is a great blessing, it cannot be labeled as a requisite for salvation itself. There is a difference between that which we must do in order to be saved and those blessing that come to us because we are saved.
I will admit that non-Pentecostal Christians have for years made the mistake of confusing the ministry of the Spirit at the new birth with the baptism or infilling in the Spirit after the new birth. They have attempted to make these two separate experiences one and the same; however, I feel the Word of God makes it unquestionably clear that the baptism is a gift received subsequent (after) salvation.
The Baptism in the Holy Spirit is not given as a cause of salvation but as a consequence(or because of) of salvation.
For instance, in Acts 11:17 Cornelius and his fellow Gentiles were "saved" by believing the words told them by Peter, and then God poured out the Holy Spirit upon them. There is not a single Scripture which states that one must be baptized with the Holy Spirit and speak withy other tongues in order to be saved. The disciples were not commanded to "tarry in Jerusalem" until they received an enduement of power which would save them, but to tarry for an enduement of power which would enable them to witness.
A teaching which states you have to be baptized according to the Acts 2:38 experience and also speak in tongues would not only bar from heaven many of the Christians in the world today but also countless millions of Christian believers who lived prior to the present-day outpouring of the Holy Spirit, not to mention all the hosts of not-Pentecostal Christians in the world today whose salvation is as genuine and scripturally correct as is my own.
I remember speaking to one of the adherents of the Jesus Only doctrine once. I asked him this question. What about D.L. Moody, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Finney and several others I could name. These were great men of God who stirred the world and caused untold tens of thousands to come to the Lord Jesus Christ. These people were not baptized according to Acts 2:38, neither did they speak in tongues. Are you telling me they did not go to heaven? The man was very knowledgeable in his beliefs but he hedged strongly. He tried to repeatedly to change the subject. I kept pulling him back to it. Finally hesitated that God would have to take care of that, he just didn't know.
Well, of course, that answer is ridiculous because there are not several ways to be saved. There is only one, and that is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. And if these people are correct, then basically no one was saved up until 1914, and then the only ones saved in the world today are those that adhere to their particular Acts 2:38 formula and other peculiarities of their doctrine. When one begins to look at this, you can see how ridiculous it seems but, of course, maybe their answer would be that these people were partially saved and not fully saved. I will let the reader form his own conclusions respecting that final statement.
IN CONCLUSION
I have tried to emphasize the distinctions between the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and to refute the Jesus Only teaching that Jesus is some "created" being. I have tried to emphasize the sameness in nature of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
I want it also to be said that we must ever exalt with ever-increasing fervor and devotion the precious name of Jesus. I feel it heretical to apply the name of Jesus to the Father and the Holy Spit. Nevertheless, it is my earnest prayer that our souls will be set aflame with the glory of the wonderful name of Jesus the Christ.
Exerts of this message taken from several writers--Evangelist-along with exerts from other authors.
