A Chat about Commentaries In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility.
Boyd is in quite a hurry to sweep church history under the rug in order to get on with his multi-explanations of what "in the Name of" could mean.
He unilaterally declares that there is not "one shred of evidence" over the introduction of a new baptismal formula in church history. He remarks that the early church "quibbled" about a good many issues, but the use of the Trinitarian formula was not one of them.
Amazing how all these raging Godhead debates and Councils have now been reduced to a "quibble. Cyprian insisted that "heretics" who were baptized in Jesus Name be rebaptized in the Trinity.
Cyprian set off a controversy that drew in others. Firmillian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia wrote Cyprian and quoted Pope Stephen as saying that anyone baptized in "the name of Christ, immediately obtains the grace of Christ.
The Pope stubbornly insisted that baptism in the name of Christ did indeed remit sin. I think an argument that involves these Bishops, on three continents over a number of years and results in a decision from the See of Rome; certainly qualifies as 'Shred" of evidence that there was some ": Apparently the debate was quite ongoing.
The author concluded his presentation with the statement: The Council of Constantinople condemned "Sabellian" baptism as they called it and in addition to the "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles" the practice of "one immersion into the death of Christ" was outlawed and the triple immersion in the Trinity was declared the only valid one.
It certainly seems that "two formulas" are locked in battle -- one "in Jesus Name," the other in the name of the Trinity: Why was all this passed over so hastily, if we can be that charitable, by Dr. Could it be that the next most logical question to arise would be which formula was the first one?
And as Trinitarians have long realized, the answer to that question is fatal to their contention. The earliest witness we have after the close of the Apostolic writings which are all unanimous on the Jesus Name formula is the "Epistle to the Corinthians" by Clement of Rome.
This is the next generation after the Apostle John, and what does Clement say of the baptismal formula? He refers to it in these words: It was written in Rome by an unknown individual. It was recognized in some churches as scripture and read aloud during the service.
Here it is baptism in Jesus Name again and again. He speaks of being worthy "to bear his name" Sim. It refers to Baptism in this manner: That this was a latter mutilation of the text is substantiated by the fact that "pouring" was a much later Catholic innovation.
The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states that perhaps chapter 7: It isn't until the time of Justin Martyr that we begin to see another formula, a Triune one, creeping in. In the Second and Third Centuries the two formulas are in use even as they are today. But it is quite obvious which one is "the new kid on the block.
And that is precisely the reason why unprejudiced scholars and church historians, which we previously cited, are in agreement with our position.
Peake says in Bible Commentary: Instead of the words, 'baptizing them into the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit' we should probably read simply 'into my Name' " p. Early baptism was in the name of Christ" Theological Workbook of the Bible, p.
He was a voluminous writer and compiled the earliest history of the ancient Christian Church. He had access to New Testament manuscripts that are much older than the ones we now have.
Thus he had the advantage of being much closer to the original writing of Matthew Yet he never quoted it in the Triune formula, but in all his citations which number eighteen or more he renders the text as: In his library, Eusebius must have handled codices of the Gospels older by two hundred years than the earliest uncials that we now have in our libraries.
Westcott says it is owing to the zeal of Eusebius that we know most of what is known of the history of the New Testament.Lord of the Flies, Nobel Prize-winner William Golding’s dystopian novel, allegorizes the story of schoolboys marooned on an island to investigate mankind’s inherent savagery.
The novel greatly influenced writers of horror and post-apocalyptic fiction. The free Lord of the Flies notes include comprehensive information and analysis to help you understand the book. These free notes consist of about 68 pages (20, words) and contain the following sections: Author Information; Plot Summary; Characters; Places & Objects; Chapter Notes & Analysis; These free notes also contain Quotes and Themes & Topics on Lord of the Flies by William Golding.
About “Lord of the Flies (Chap. 1: The Sound of the Shell)” Lord of the Flies is a novel by Nobel Prize-winning English author William Golding. The plot is about a group of British boys, who are stuck on an uninhabited island and try to govern themselves with disastrous results.
Let's Begin Our Journey Of Discovery On This Topic All Scriptures are taken from the Authorized King James Version of the Bible unless otherwise noted. Start studying Annotations- Lord of the Flies. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools.
Lord of the Flies. Annotations and Study Aids. Sekundarstufe II. (Lernmaterialien) [William Golding, Jennifer Baer-Engel] on leslutinsduphoenix.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers.