Posted on 07/02/2014 5:05:48 PM PDT by Faith Presses On
Your conclusion is that believing in the Trinity is not important to God so long as what a person believes concerning God, Christ and the Holy Spirit does not contradict other scripture, and thus you agree that doctrinal conformity is important to God, which is why their is theology, and is why there is a doctrine of the Trinity.
And "increasing in the knowledge of God," (Col. 1:10) is important to Him, and
"That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ; (Colossians 2:2)
And as the devil attacks the nature of God, it is also important to theologically develop what is in essence understood.
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; (2 Corinthians 10:5)
How much did Cornelius and company understand about how the atonement works ("satisfaction," "penal substitution," "governmental," "limited" vs. "universal") in conversion? He only needed to know that "To him [the Lord of all] give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43)
But certainly understanding more about how this works is important, not simply because as the devil can get into the details, but the holiness, justice and mercy of God is better appreciated in understanding the atonement.
You affirm the deity of the Son and the Spirit, but do not see denial of the personhood of the Spirit and thus the Trinity as contradicting scriptures, but which we do. Expanding upon Matthew 28:19, denial of the Trinity has one being baptized in the name of two persons and a thing , which is inconsistent with the other two entities being persons.
And since the Son is also called a thing, such as the "word of God," yet the Son is identified as a person as one who gives grace, and and God as one who gives love, and tyhe Spirit as one who gives the communion, in "the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all." " (2 Corinthians 13:14)
Moreover, as shown, the Spirit gives "gifts to every man severally as he will [ boulomai]" , (1Cor. 12:11) the same word that is used of the Son as in Mt. 11:37, "to whomsoever the Son will reveal him."
And rather than simply being an instrumental part of God, like the mind, the Spirit "searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God," (1 Corinthians 2:10) and "he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God." (Romans 8:27)
Thus like as the Son is instrumentally used of God, and is referred to as such yet is also manifest as a person with a will, so is the Spirit.
I do think you are trying to be reason-able, but i see your argument as partly being what is intellectually essential for salvation, versus what may be implicitly understood in essence, and which is then developed and expanded upon as important for the worship of God.
Often the head needs to catch up with, and make sense of the heart. A person who falls in love need not intellectually understand a lot about the differences btwn man and women (no there's a mystery!) in order to be married and raise kids, but both must be free to marry and committed to basics (part of "cleave), and a good marriage requires being teachable and dwelling with her "according to knowledge." (1Pt. 3:7)
Also, a wise mother may not be able to articulate much of what she knows by intuition and experience, but she knows it nonetheless.
And here I would posit that like as a Gentile can essentially do "by nature the things contained in the law," (Rm. 2:14) even though unable to articulate much, so in conversion the soul is implicitly assenting to things in heart that at that time he/she usually would not be able to much understand or articulate.
But as in essence he/she is concurring with these realities, once more light is given then they assent to it. I remember hearing the conversion testimony of Jack Wyrtzen , found of Word of Life camps, and how after becoming born again he was shown that the Lord Jesus was God. He had never "known" this and it blew him away, but he quickly assent to it. For indeed, to believe on the risen Lord Jesus to given them eternal life is to believe in His deity, as only God can be that Savior. Thus the Jews went about to destroy Him. (Jn. 10)
Likewise, in conversion one need only placing faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save the contrite damned+destitute sinner by His sinless shed blood, but in seeing the Son one is seeing the Father, and the Spirit manifesting Him. And thus one is implicitly trusting God as the Father, Son and Spirit, and upon being given more light they will concur with what is shown.
But contrary your single text hermenutic, i see Jn. 1:1 teaches the Word (Christ: v. 14) is God, and Divine attributes and worship being ascribed to Him, (Heb. 1 etc.) and "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," (Matthew 28:19)
In post #140, I commented on Mat 28:19 and will copy paste the snippet
“That is a powerful verse that places the Father, Son and Holy Spirit on the same level. However, scholars debate whether those are the exact words of Christ, or a paraphrase that was part of the original text reflecting baptismal practice of the church circa 80AD? Two reasons being: First, Matt 28:19 has no other scriptural parallel. Mark 16:15-18 bears closest resemblance but does not mention the threefold name. Secondly, If Christ commanded baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, why isn’t there a record of any Apostolic Fathers, or New Testament writer baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Instead, in the Acts of the Apostles baptism is in Christ’s name. Paul speaks of being baptized into Christ, or Christ Jesus but never the threefold name.”
and "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all," (2 Corinthians 13:14) as teaching a Divine unity of persons,
I agree the triadic formula is present but I don’t see where from 2 Cor 13:14 one can conclude the Holy Spirit is a diety. A created being yes. A created being of very high rank yes. Knowledge of John 1:1-2 makes clear that God and Christ are distinct yet the same but where is an equivalent to John 1:1-2 regarding the Holy Spirit?
and defining the one God who said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness," (Gn. 1:26).
Binitarianism will satisfy Gn 1:26
So just as more than one verse is necessary to understand what Jn. 3:16 teaches, so more than one is what makes a doctrine to be a clear and present reality in the scripture.
I agree. I just used Jn 3:16 as a starting point concerning salvation and how salvation relates to the Trinity.
But first, what we do not find of course is texts showing worshiping the Holy Spirit and praying to Him, since the Spirit is the one who inspires both, but He points to the Head and the One whom He inspired in expressing the Head. Yet He reveals His unity with the Father and the Son in such texts as Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14, and by worshiping the Father and the Son then one is worshiping the Spirit.
You just validated part of my point that scripture isn’t as clear about the Trinity as many grew up believing it to be. If the three are co-equals, why are only two given divine titles, worshiped and prayed to but not the third member?
Moreover, perhaps no where is His deity and personhood more revealed than in the teaching that,
All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. (Matthew 12:31-32)
One can certainly infer a divine status from that. However, could a person be condemned to hell as some here believe if a person viewed the Holy Spirit as merely an agent of God and that blasphemy against God’s agent was regarded as blasphemy against God?
I would like to continue but my brain needs a break and I have some chores to do around the house. I appreciate all that you have written and will be happy to address the remainder of your post as part of our discussion but for the moment, I need a break.
Then you should probably refrain commenting about them at all, rather than referring to them as 'Christians,' albeit as "not mainstream Christians." You come off as a fellow-traveler with a cult, which you are.
You are making an unsupported leap.
You are only making an assertion. The Apostle directly states that they lied to the Holy Spirit, and then reiterates that they have not "lied to man, but to God." You contradict me, but you don't bother to explain why.
You cannot lie to a mere "force," since the force has no identity. This would be like saying, "You have lied to the telephone. You have lied to me," if perhaps you were having an argument with someone over the phone. Nor can you call an angel "God."
The triadic linkage is interesting but it does not establish the Holy Spirit as divine.
A ridiculous conclusion. If your argument is that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force and is therefore nothing, an inanimate object, how do you dismiss this verse which clearly presents the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as distinct individuals? You give assertions, but you do not give really valid reasons why we should believe you.
That is a powerful verse that places the Father, Son and Holy Spirit on the same level. However, scholars debate whether those are the exact words of Christ, or a paraphrase that was part of the original text reflecting baptismal practice of the church circa 80AD?
Who are these scholars you refer to? What are their names? Just talking about what some unnamed people say doesn't help you with anything. None of the Greek manuscripts have variation on that verse, and the exact wording is supported by quotes from ancient church writings dating back as far as the first century.
For example, the Didache:
From the Didache:
"And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit."
Justin Martyr:
"Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are born again, for they then receive washing in water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ also said, ‘Except you are born again, you will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.'"(First Apology, Ch. 61)
Irenaeus:
"And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, he said to them, ‘Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’" (Against Heresies Book 3, Ch. 17.1)
Tertullian:
"For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: ‘Go,’ He says, ‘teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’" (On Baptism, Ch. 13)
Hippolytus:
"And when he who is baptized goes down into the water, he who baptizes him, putting his hand on him, shall say thus: Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty? And he who is being baptized shall say: I believe. Then holding his hand placed on his head, he shall baptize him once. And then he shall say: Do you believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was dead and buried, and rose again on the third day, alive from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead? And when he says: I believe, he is baptized again. And again he shall say: Do you believe in holy spirit, and the holy church, and the resurrection of the flesh? He who is being baptized shall say accordingly: I believe, and so he is baptized a third time." (The Apostolic Tradition, Ch. 21)
Cyprian:
"But if any one objects, by way of saying that Novatian holds the same law which the universal church holds, baptizes with the same symbol with which we baptize, knows the same God and Father, the same Christ the Son, the same Holy Spirit, and that for this reason he may claim the power of baptizing, namely, that he seems not to differ from us in the baptismal interrogatory; let any one that thinks that this may be objected, know first of all, that there is not one law of the creed"
If you yourself confess that this was the view of the ancient church, then you would have to expect us to believe that the scripture was forged before even the death of John the Apostle, yet with absolutely no dissent or evidence.
I will also note that your entire premise here attacks the divine origin of the Holy Scriptures, putting you in the same group as atheists or cultists who frequently attack the authority of scripture to explain away the scripture's frequent contradiction of their claims.
Two reasons being: First, Matt 28:19 has no other scriptural parallel.
Is this the reasoning of your scholars? If it is, then your two reasons aren't evidence at all, but mere speculation. If you have no textual or historical evidence, then all this is is the rantings of liberals or cultists who are enemies of Christ anyway.
I'll also add that you just got done poo pooing Mar 1:10-11 and 2 Co 13:14, which certainly parallel it. Even you called the latter a "trinitarian linkage." Your only problem with it is that you did not like it, for no apparent reason.
Instead, in the Acts of the Apostles baptism is in Christ’s name. Paul speaks of being baptized into Christ, or Christ Jesus but never the threefold name.
This "second" reason is also quite weak:
"The phrases in Acts may not, however, reflect alternative formulas in the administration of baptism or alternative understandings of the meaning of the act. In some cases the description in Acts may mean a baptism administered on a confession of Jesus as Lord and Christ (cf. Acts 22:16), or it may be a general characterization of the baptism as related to Jesus and not a formula pronounced at the baptism. In the later history the only formula regularly attested as pronounced by the administrator includes the triune name, but in Matthew it too may be descriptive rather than formulaic. If Matthew 28:19 is not a formula, then there is no necessary contradiction to the description “in the name of the Lord” in Acts and Paul" (Ferguson, p. 136, qtd in http://lhim.org/gladtidings/articles/Is_Matthew_28:19_Authentic_or_a_Forgery_by_Rev__Sean_Finnegan_issue_106.pdf)
This also is merely huff and puff passed off as hard evidence.
...that the Holy Spirit is an object of worship, to be prayed to?
The body of the Christian is called the "temple" of the Holy Ghost:
1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
This is a direct comparison of the human body with the temple of Jerusalem which was resided in by God Himself, not any created being, and the body of a Christian is also called interchangeably by Paul "The temple of God."
1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
This cannot be so if God does not actually dwell in us, but only the Holy Spirit, a "force" or an angel.
The Holy Spirit can be blasphemed against, and this, unforgivable:
Mat_12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
This cannot be so if the Holy Spirit is merely a "force" or an angel.
Here, Paul quotes the Old Testament:
"Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years." (Heb 3:7-9)
Paul quotes God in the Old Testament, but ascribes it to the Holy Ghost. This cannot be so if the Holy Spirit is merely an "object," or an angel.
In Isaiah, the Holy Spirit is differenciated from the other members of the Trinity:
Isa 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
This cannot be so if the Holy Spirit is merely a "force," since it would be like saying "God and His Force hath sent me."
That is simply not necessary in one text, while other texts do support the divinity of the Spirit. Your hermeneutic from the beginning is one that requires an all-in-one statement for a doctrine, which is simply the what the Holy Spirit works. Like the body of Christ, there is an interdependence in which there is one book, but many "members" complimenting each other. Scripture is like a wind orchestra, with the Spirit sounding thru individual distinctive sounds but making harmony unto the Lord.
, your strongest verse for the divinity of the Holy Spirit is Matt 28:19 but as I just pointed out, controversy exists as to whether those were the exact words of Jesus or a paraphrase that reflected baptismal practices of the late 1st century church?
It does not matter whether these were the verbatim words of Christ, and duplicate accounts such as the trial of Christ indicate the Holy Spirit expanded on what Christ said at times to provide a more comprehensive revelation.
But what matters is whether the text is Scripture, and from beginning there was nothing to indicate you were going to engage in doubting even the great commission as being Scripture. And if so, there is little point in providing Scriptural warrant for you on anything here, as most any text can find "scholars" who doubt it, which you can invoke to disallow what is provided.
For such scholars do not stop with MT. 28:19, but hold or depend upon others who assert the Greek MSS of the text of the New Testament were often altered by scribes. Thus we dealing with a whole new topic, which is not simply Scriptural support for the Trinity, but what even qualifies as Scripture.
Are a Christadelphian by any chance? Or what?
Here," some "scholars" subscribe to a da Vince code type assertion that Mt. 28:19 was a later interpolation added during or after the Council of Nicea in a.d. 325 when the Trinity became accepted.
Yet there is absolutely no textual variation whatsoever for Matthew 28.19 in the extant manuscripts, ("In all extant MSS, ...the text is found in the traditional form" - Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics), and substantial historical witness to Mt. 28:19 supports it, including,
the First Apology by Justin Martyr (a.d. 155) chapter 61: “…Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are born again, for they then receive washing in water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. .
Tertullian, c. 200 AD, in On Baptism, Chapter XIII: "For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: "Go," He saith, "teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
Against Praxeas, chapter 2 says, "After His resurrection ..He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost".
Hippolytus (170-236 AD in Fragment Part II.-Dogmatical and Historical --Against the Heresy of One Noetus, "gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Cyprian (200-258AD) in The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian: And again, after His resurrection, sending His apostles, He gave them charge, saying, "All power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth. Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." and alludes to the same passage in other places as well.
Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-265 AD) in A Sectional Confession of Faith, XIII: "....the Lord sends forth His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?"
The Didache, chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water.
Meanwhile, it remains that one can blaspheme the Son and be forgiven, but not the Spirit, thus denoting deity, while you do not blaspheme a "thing," but a person.
And it is absurd to assert that "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all," (2 Corinthians 13:14) merely teaches the Spirit is a "created being of very high rank"! (post #142)
As if the Spirit of God who searches the mind of God and is never even inferred to have a beginning but is shown as intrinsically being part of God is some created being, while at the same time you see no evidence for the Spirit being himself a being! This is a new and desperate measure.
Thus faced with evidence for the personhood of the Spirit, you complain that does not show His divinity, and then faced evidence for His divinity, you complain some scholars think it was added, and that that the Spirit of God was a created being, but not a person!
You are not being reasonable now, but evidence that you are determined to hold to your opinion despite whatever evidence is presented.
Who just MUST have gotten 'created' early on in this story; between verse one and two...
Genesis 1:1-2
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, 2 and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
We get to commune with ANGELS of high rank?
Colossians 2:18
Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you.
And in post 144 i reproved this new measure in dealing with a verse which you admit , "is a powerful verse that places the Father, Son and Holy Spirit on the same level."
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all," (2 Corinthians 13:14) as teaching a Divine unity of persons,
I agree the triadic formula is present but I don’t see where from 2 Cor 13:14 one can conclude the Holy Spirit is a diety. A created being yes. A created being of very high rank yes
I also reproved this absurdity in #144. As if a created being was ever included in a benediction of God's presence, while you yourself before stated , "The strongest indications of divinity are: 2 Cor 3:17-18, Phil 3:3 and John 16:8-11, 1 Cor 12:4-6, 2 Cor 13:14."
Yet by resorting to making the Spirit into a mere created being then you actually support Him as being a person! But what you continually resort to is the demand for an all-in-one text that shows both the deity as well as the personhood of the Spirit of God. Being shown the deity, you respond that this does not show the Spirit as a person, and being shown Him as a person, you respond that this does not show Him as Divine!
And i already provided evidence of the Holy Spirit being Divine, not the least of which is that blasphemy against Him is uniquely condemned.
To which you admitted,
One can certainly infer a divine status from that
However, being tired it appears i did not respond to your last argument which was,
However, could a person be condemned to hell as some here believe if a person viewed the Holy Spirit as merely an agent of God and that blasphemy against God’s agent was regarded as blasphemy against God?
While i do not think ignorantly mistaking the Spirit as a Divine instrument of God is the same as blaspheming His character, yet once more light is given i think it testifies against the person as being born again.
I think one can be confused as with some in the UPC, but to deny Christ and the Spirit as being Divine with the Father is heresy.
And once again by making the Spirit into a created agent then you are admitting the Spirit is a person, while no one was ever accused of blaspheming a created being as being more severe than blaspheming the Son.
The text,
All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come, (Matthew 12:31-32)
supports the Spirit as being a Divine person, along with other texts, including as having a will and being one of 3 which constitute the "name" one is baptized with, and one of 3 persons which provide the believer with grace, love and communions, respectively.
You just validated part of my point that scripture isn’t as clear about the Trinity as many grew up believing it to be. If the three are co-equals, why are only two given divine titles, worshiped and prayed to but not the third member?
That was answered, and as cited, "the Lord is that Spirit." (2Cor. 3:17)
PFL
That was answered, and as cited, "the Lord is that Spirit." (2Cor. 3:17)
.. And the referent for "that Spirit" appears to be here:
2Co 3:2-3 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: (3) Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
... so that in the discussion that follows Paul is unfolding how the Holy Spirit works in the heart to remove the "veil of Moses" and turn the believer from the dead letter of the Old Covenant to the fullness of spiritual life in Christ. And if that Spirit is the Lord, per verse 17, it is inescapably clear that the Holy Spirit and God are being treated here as one and the same divine Being.
Which gets us on to the question of clarity. The above passage is just one of many that establish the unique divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit. The notion that there must be some one passage that sets it out all in one place for one-stop shopping convenience is perhaps a reflection of modern consumer expectations, but in dealing with eternal truth concerning the divine nature, it is an absurdity, and itself an unscriptural idea:
Pro 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.God is not obligated to make it so nor has he stated anywhere that all spiritual truth will be obvious and easy. Indeed, Paul makes the case that there are levels of difficulty, which he distinguishes as "milk" doctrines versus "meat" doctrines:
Heb 5:12-14 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. (13) For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. (14) But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.We do hold those doctrines necessary for salvation to be sufficiently clear that lost sinners are both accountable for their rejection of them and also may come to salvation through them, according to the grace of God. But that does not make those more challenging truths less true, nor less essential to the body of truth "once delivered to the saints." Thus, as Daniel says, we are obligated to believe them once they have been shown to us, and rejection of them is either a retardant to our spiritual growth or an indicator of a deeper unbelief.
Then you should probably refrain commenting about them at all, rather than referring to them as 'Christians,' albeit as "not mainstream Christians." You come off as a fellow-traveler with a cult, which you are.
I sense you seek opportunities to provoke arguments rather than create harmony. I question if your intent is to help bring the body of Christ together, or force it farther apart?
You are making an unsupported leap. You are only making an assertion. The Apostle directly states that they lied to the Holy Spirit, and then reiterates that they have not "lied to man, but to God." You contradict me, but you don't bother to explain why.
There is a concept called agency in which one entity can act on behalf of another. To establish divinity, you need to rule out agency as an explanation.
You cannot lie to a mere "force," since the force has no identity. This would be like saying, "You have lied to the telephone. You have lied to me," if perhaps you were having an argument with someone over the phone. Nor can you call an angel "God."
Agency applied to scripture would permit an angel, or other spirit being to act on behalf of God and if you lie to the spirit you lie to God.
I previously wrote: “The triadic linkage is interesting but it does not establish the Holy Spirit as divine.”
You replied:
A ridiculous conclusion.
Are you trying to stir up strife, or create harmony?
If your argument is that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force and is therefore nothing, an inanimate object, how do you dismiss this verse which clearly presents the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as distinct individuals? You give assertions, but you do not give really valid reasons why we should believe you.
Do you pay no attention to what I write, or do you just act on whatever your impulse is, or are you just seeking opportunity to stir up strife?
In post #120 and #121, I responded to: Since you hold that the Father and Son are divine, but the Holy Spirit as a "force," I think this means you are an Armstrongite.
This was my response in #120 and #121:
I'm not sure where you got that from my post. I wrote:I can understand how they would come to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is a distinct divinity, coequal and coeternal with God and Christ but I can also understand from scripture how a person might decide the Holy Spirit is more likely to be a force, or God's presence.
Concerning Mat 28:19, I previously wrote: “That is a powerful verse that places the Father, Son and Holy Spirit on the same level. However, scholars debate whether those are the exact words of Christ, or a paraphrase that was part of the original text reflecting baptismal practice of the church circa 80AD?”
Who are these scholars you refer to? What are their names?
I NEED TO MAKE AN IMPORTANT CORRECTION: I originally wrote that there is no record of the Apostolic Fathers using the threefold name. That was an editorial mistake on my part. At a certain point in these long HTML exchanges, it can become very difficult to edit accurately. I originally intended to discuss the baptismal rite theory but decided not to at which point I edited the text with the intent of it reading “Secondly, If Christ commanded baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, why isn’t there a record of any apostles, or New Testament writer baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?” I’m very sorry about that and can understand how it would raise a lot of red flags.
Back to your comment:
Just talking about what some unnamed people say doesn't help you with anything. None of the Greek manuscripts have variation on that verse, and the exact wording is supported by quotes from ancient church writings dating back as far as the first century.
The Apostolic Fathers did use the threefold formula but as far as I recall do not make mention of a baptismal rite such as suggested in your Finnegan article with the Ferguson quote. Didn’t I write that the Great Commission is part of the original text of Matthew?
For example, the Didache:,Justin Martyr:,Irenaeus:,Tertullian:,Hippolytus:,Cyprian:
Thank you. Finnegan cited them I believe primarily to dispel accusations that the Great Commission was an insertion circa 4th century. I’ve never suggested that and from the outset indicated a belief that the words are contained in the original Gospel manuscript. Your reference to the Apostolic Fathers is probably due to my above editorial mistake.
I wrote: “Two reasons being: First, Matt 28:19 has no other scriptural parallel.”
You responded:
Is this the reasoning of your scholars? If it is, then your two reasons aren't evidence at all, but mere speculation.
Hold on there. The scholars you cite a little farther down use speculative language and admit to a “seeming contradiction”.
If you have no textual or historical evidence, then all this is is the rantings of liberals or cultists who are enemies of Christ anyway.
The article link you provided by Finnegan quotes Ferguson using speculative language . Ferguson’s quote doesn’t contain citations but probably comes directly, or indirectly from J. Crehan, "Early Christian Baptism and the Creed, (1950) p.25, p.76., p.79-p.84. I no longer have Crehan to quote verbatim but a copy can be obtained via public libraries.
I’m not the one who cited Finnegan. It was you. Finnegan admits to speculating as to an explanation in his concluding sentence:
However we work o ut the seeming contradiction, our difficulty here does not warrant changing what Scripture says to read more smoothly.The reason speculative language is used by Finnegan and Ferguson is likely due to there being no examples in scripture or early Apostolic Fathers of such a baptismal rite.
The scholars I would cite are:
Cullmann, "Earliest Christian Confessions", (1949)
F. C. Conybeare, ZNTW, II (1901)
F. H. Chase, “The Lord’s Command to Baptize (St. Matthew XXVIII 19)”, JTS, VI, (1904-1905).
Lebreton, "History of the Dogma of the Trinity from its origins to the Council of Nicaea", (1939)
J. Crehan, "Early Christian Baptism and the Creed, (1950)
W. E. Flemington, New Testament Doctrine of Baptism, (1957)
H. G. Marsh, "Origin and Significance of Baptism", (1941)
A. W. Wainwright, “The Trinity in the New Testament”, (1962),
. I'll also add that you just got done poo pooing Mar 1:10-11
How do I poo poo Mar 1:10-11 when in #139 we had the following exchange:
Your wrote:I don’t see where I poo pooed anything you wrote."And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Mar 1:10-11 )
Here the Father speaks in heaven, while the Holy Spirit hovers above the Son.
I responded with:
This is further support for the Holy Spirit as a distinct being rather than impersonal force/presence. It does not establish divinity of the Holy Spirit.
You wrote:
and 2 Co 13:14, which certainly parallel it. Even you called the latter a "trinitarian linkage." Your only problem with it is that you did not like it, for no apparent reason.
2 Co 13:14 does not establish divinity of the Holy Spirit because it does not rule out agency… power of attorney.
I wrote:
”Instead, in the Acts of the Apostles baptism is in Christ’s name. Paul speaks of being baptized into Christ, or Christ Jesus but never the threefold name.”
You responded with:
This "second" reason is also quite weak:
If it was so weak, why can’t you offer a stronger rebuttal than Finnegan and Ferguson? Finnegan admits to an apparent scriptural contradiction and Ferguson uses speculative language of “may” throughout his explanation. From Ferguson:
"The phrases in Acts may not, however, reflect alternative formulas in the administration of baptism or alternative understandings of the meaning of the act. In some cases the description in Acts may mean a baptism administered on a confession of Jesus as Lord and Christ (cf. Acts 22:16), or it may be a general characterization of the baptism as related to Jesus and not a formula pronounced at the baptism. In the later history the only formula regularly attested as pronounced by the administrator includes the triune name, but in Matthew it too may be descriptive rather than formulaic. If Matthew 28:19 is not a formula, then there is no necessary contradiction to the description “in the name of the Lord” in Acts and Paul" (Ferguson, p. 136, qtd in http://lhim.org/gladtidings/articles/Is_Matthew_28:19_Authentic_or_a_Forgery_by_Rev__Sean_Finnegan_issue_106.pdf)
This also is merely huff and puff passed off as hard evidence.
Huff and puff?? Notice Ferguson who you cited via Finnegan uses the conditional word “may” and he isn’t sure if Mat 28:19 is a formula, or not. You claim it to be clear yet offer up an expert who says it is not clear.
I wrote:
” that the Holy Spirit is an object of worship, to be prayed to”
You responded : The body of the Christian is called the "temple" of the Holy Ghost:
I’m not sure what you are getting at. God and Christ both have scriptural titles of divinity, are worshipped and prayed to. Where is similar done for the Holy Spirit?
1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
This is a direct comparison of the human body with the temple of Jerusalem which was resided in by God Himself, not any created being, and the body of a Christian is also called interchangeably by Paul "The temple of God."
1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
This cannot be so if God does not actually dwell in us, but only the Holy Spirit, a "force" or an angel.
I understand all of that but am not sure as to what your point is.
The Holy Spirit can be blasphemed against, and this, unforgivable:
Mat_12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
This cannot be so if the Holy Spirit is merely a "force" or an angel. I’m not so sure I can agree because of agency.
Here, Paul quotes the Old Testament:
"Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years." (Heb 3:7-9)
Paul quotes God in the Old Testament, but ascribes it to the Holy Ghost. This cannot be so if the Holy Spirit is merely an "object," or an angel.
In Isaiah, the Holy Spirit is differenciated from the other members of the Trinity:
Isa 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
This cannot be so if the Holy Spirit is merely a "force," since it would be like saying "God and His Force hath sent me."
There is an even larger body of scripture dealing with the Holy Spirit that we have not considered. Some appear to be written as metaphor, many appear to describe the Holy Spirit as more of a presence/force/fluid, others describe it in personal terms.
Because scripture doesn’t give the Holy Spirit divine titles as is does for God and Christ, because scripture doesn’t show the Holy Spirit being worshipped and prayed to as is done for God and Christ, and because there is no clear equating of the three as is done for God and Christ in John 1, the entire body of scripture must be considered and inferences made as to the nature of the Holy Spirit. This was my original point, scripture isn’t as clear as many want it to be concerning the nature of the Holy Spirit and therefore the Trinity.
The LDS, and other anti-Trinitarian groups, are by definition not part of the Body of Christ, although they always make demands that they be considered so, despite their attacks not only on Christian doctrine but on every aspect of the Body, such as what you have done with the scripture. No Christian is going to let go of such vital doctrines just to appease heretics.
We Christians are not obligated to acknowledge the heterdox, but are commanded, in fact, to do the opposite.
2Co 11:12-13 And what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
Agency applied to scripture would permit an angel, or other spirit being to act on behalf of God and if you lie to the spirit you lie to God.
If you refer to the Holy Spirit as an "angel" or a "spirit being," then you ascribe to Him personhood. If these verses prove personhood, then you cannot explain away those passages which prove divinity as an example of His objecthood.
Thank you. Finnegan cited them I believe primarily to dispel accusations that the Great Commission was an insertion circa 4th century. I’ve never suggested that and from the outset indicated a belief that the words are contained in the original Gospel manuscript. Your reference to the Apostolic Fathers is probably due to my above editorial mistake.
You are shifting goal posts. You denied that the verse: "Go ye therefore and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost" was genuine. The quotes by the Church Fathers are either direct quotes of that verse going back to the first century, or baptismal instructions based on that verse using the pattern of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." The quote from Finnegan was only to explain why the Apostles summed up the name of Baptism in Christ, rather than saying Father, Son and Spirit all the time, in the book of Acts. This also was part of your attack on the genuiness of that verse. All this talk about you not denying the great commission, baptismal rites, yada yada yada, have nothing to do with what you originally wrote and what I responded to. Daniel1212 gave a similar response, also quoting the same Fathers (though he had a few extra).
Ferguson’s quote doesn’t contain citations but probably comes directly, or indirectly from J. Crehan,
What citations? What quotes? The quotes of the Church Fathers? I did indeed cite them, and Daniel cited them and expanded on them. You can use either newadvent.org or ccel to read them for yourself.
The reason speculative language is used by Finnegan and Ferguson is likely due to there being no examples in scripture or early Apostolic Fathers of such a baptismal rite.
What exactly are you defining as a "Baptismal rite"? Multiple quotes from the Fathers are, in fact, describing baptismal rites, in what name they should be said in (Father Son and Holy Spirit), and how the person ought to be dipped, or sprinkled, depending on the availability.
As for "speculative language," how about you quote Finnegan and make clear what you are talking about and what you are disputing? If it is on the genuineness of that verse, then, no, Finnegan never expresses doubt on the validity of that verse.
2 Co 13:14 does not establish divinity of the Holy Spirit because it does not rule out agency… power of attorney.
Are you even conscious? Read the verse:
2Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
What would the Holy Spirit be doing operating as an agent here? What is He agencying? Fellowship? Or is this another one of your "editorial mistakes"?
The scholars I would cite are:
So your sources range from a hundred years ago to 40 years ago? Can you name any contemporary scholar who would claim that the verse in Matthew is not genuine and why, exactly, they do so?
...and Ferguson uses speculative language of “may” throughout his explanation. From Ferguson:
And do you have anything stronger than citing a "may" in proving that the verse in Matthew is not genuine?
I understand all of that but am not sure as to what your point is.
Is that all you have to say about it? If the Holy Spirit is called God again and again, how can you understand it and then not comment on it?
Because scripture doesn’t give the Holy Spirit divine titles as is does for God and Christ, because scripture doesn’t show the Holy Spirit being worshipped and prayed to as is done for God and Christ, and because there is no clear equating of the three as is done for God and Christ in John 1, the entire body of scripture must be considered and inferences made as to the nature of the Holy Spirit.
Your original point is false, since it stands on disputing the validity of certain verses and ignoring lots more.
Let's cut to the chase.
After all is said and done and read and studied; do YOU consider the Holy Spirit to be 'devine'?
Unfair!
The LDS, and other anti-Trinitarian groups, are by definition not part of the Body of Christ, although they always make demands that they be considered so,
How dare you create division rather than harmony with these elitist exclusive "one true church" groups, rather than being like the poster who creates harmony by rejecting evidence for the Trinity by arguing texts that evidence Deity of the Spirit of God do not evidence personhood, and ones that evidence personhood do not testify to deity, and if one testifies to both then it does not count since some scholars reject it, or another could refer to a created person/being, even though neither any individual or collective texts teach that the Spirit was created, but was there in the beginning of creation. (Gn. 1:2)
More from another site:
B. Masculine pronouns are used in reference to the Holy Spirit despite the fact that "Spirit" (Greek--pneuma) is neuter (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:8, 13f, Greek--ekeinos, literally, that One).
C. The Holy Spirit and Jesus are both our helper/lawyer between us and God: Jesus sent "another comforter": ("allos parakletos") Jn 14:16 Greek "allos" another of the same kind. Even if you reject that Jesus is God, another of the same kind as Jesus must be a person! The Arian view would require the word "hetros" another of a different kind. So the Holy Spirit is a person who is a "comforter, helper, advocate". Used of the Holy Spirit 5 times in John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7; 14:16 and once of Christ in 1 John 2:1. When we combine this with the fact that Jesus said the Holy Spirit was another helper, Gr "allos", "another of the same kind", the personality of the Holy Spirit is reinforced even stronger. The Greek word "parakletos" that is used in all these verses was always applied to persons, not things. So the fact that both Greek words "allos" and "parakletos" TOGETHER in the same phrase in reference to Jesus is irrefutable proof that the Holy Spirit is portrayed as a person. In Acts 9:31 Christians were "walking in the fear of the Lord and the comfort of the Holy Spirit." The word, "Comfort" [parakleses] is the verb form of the noun parakletos.
D. The Holy Spirit can be fellowshipped: The Holy Spirit can be fellowshipped: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all" 2 Cor 13:14. We are not saying that the word fellowship itself, demands the Holy Spirit is a person, but that a word that normally, but not always implies personality, is used in conjunction with two other known persons. E. The "Holy Spirit" is in contrast to "unholy Spirit", who are persons: The very term "Holy Spirit" is used in contrast to "unholy spirits" like demons and the devil: Mark 3:22-23; Mt 12:32; 1 Tim 4:1; 1 Jn 3:24-4:6. If "unholy or evil spirits" are persons, then the Holy Spirit is a person. This point applies to Jehovah's Witnesses but not Christadelphians, because the later do not even ascribe personality to the devil or demons, but view them as the personification of sin and disease respectively. The Spirit The Holy said: "set Barnabas & Saul apart for ME for the work to which I have called them." Acts 13:2 The Spirit the Wicked said to them: "I know Jesus and Paul, but who are you" Acts 19:15
II. The Holy Spirit simply must be a person and is much more than God's power or active force: A. The Holy Spirit is outright said to have a mind which energy does not. B. The Holy Spirit experience emotions, slights and injuries which energy does not. C. The Holy Spirit evaluates, reasons and chooses with intelligent freewill which energy cannot do. D. The Holy Spirit originates intelligent thought and speaks which energy cannot do. E. The Holy Spirit assists us in ways only another person could. F. The Holy Spirit takes actions of intelligent freewill, which energy cannot do. G. The Holy Spirit bears witness in a pattern that always involves a person:
III. The Holy Spirit is a divine person, like the Father A. The Holy Spirit is outright Called God:
B. The Holy Spirit shares Qualities that only God possesses:
C. The Holy Spirit is divine in power:
D. The Holy Spirit is divine in character:
More: http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-holy-spirit-personality-deity.htm
Well; all that is just your opinion.
We Christians are not obligated to acknowledge the heterdox, but are commanded, in fact, to do the opposite.
2Co 11:12-13 And what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
So you say if a person professes a belief that Jesus Christ died as atonement for our sins, is baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and that if such person does not share your exact understanding of the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit that such person is damned?
I previously wrote: Agency applied to scripture would permit an angel, or other spirit being to act on behalf of God and if you lie to the spirit you lie to God.
You replied:
If you refer to the Holy Spirit as an "angel" or a "spirit being," then you ascribe to Him personhood. If these verses prove personhood, then you cannot explain away those passages which prove divinity as an example of His objecthood.
We haven’t gotten to that point of identifying which scriptural references to the Holy Spirit are more suggestive of a conscious being versus a dynamic force/presence.
Most scriptural references to the Spirit suggest a dynamic force/presence. In just the book of Acts there are sixty two references to the Spirit. Eighteen are in terms of a conscious being with the remainder being more suggestive of a dynamic force/presence. However, once the entire body of scripture dealing with the Holy Spirit is assembled for consideration, then we can make that determination. Not such an easy task, is it? Fortunately, I believe Christ gave us a strong hint concerning which way to go by speaking of the Spirit mostly in terms of a conscious being.
I previously wrote: Thank you. Finnegan cited them I believe primarily to dispel accusations that the Great Commission was an insertion circa 4th century. I’ve never suggested that and from the outset indicated a belief that the words are contained in the original Gospel manuscript. Your reference to the Apostolic Fathers is probably due to my above editorial mistake.
You replied with:
You are shifting goal posts. You denied that the verse: "Go ye therefore and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost" was genuine.
Where did I deny authenticity? I didn’t. I merely pointed out that controversy exists concerning whether it is an exact quote of Christ, or a paraphrasing reflecting late 1st century church practice.
I only brought up the controversy because you placed such weight upon it as proof of the Trinity doctrine. If you place weight on it you need to defend it, which you attempted by citing scholars who admit to the controversy and state that not all New Testament scripture is authentic. You cited Ferguson within the Finnegan article as follows: (Ferguson, p. 136, qtd in http://lhim.org/gladtidings/articles/Is_Matthew_28:19_Authentic_or_a_Forgery_by_Rev__Sean_Finnegan_issue_106.pdf)
Do you now wish to retract your scholarly citation?
You wrote:
The quotes by the Church Fathers are either direct quotes of that verse going back to the first century, or baptismal instructions based on that verse using the pattern of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." The quote from Finnegan was only to explain why the Apostles summed up the name of Baptism in Christ, rather than saying Father, Son and Spirit all the time, in the book of Acts. This also was part of your attack on the genuiness of that verse.
No I was merely pointing out that controversy exists surrounding why if Christ used the threefold baptismal formula as part of the Great Commission, why no New Testament writer records use of the threefold baptismal formula. You proceed to respond by citing a source that on p15 asserts not all New Testament scripture is authentic:
We are fortunate today to live in a time when the New Testament text is over 99% established based on centuries of discover ies, cataloging, and comparisons.Do you wish to retract the scholars you cited?
All this talk about you not denying the great commission, baptismal rites, yada yada yada, have nothing to do with what you originally wrote and what I responded to. Daniel1212 gave a similar response, also quoting the same Fathers (though he had a few extra).
No! Not at all. You quoted Ferguson within the Finnegan article without qualification. I’ll repost your quoted scholar:
"The phrases in Acts may not, however, reflect alternative formulas in the administration of baptism or alternative understandings of the meaning of the act. In some cases the description in Acts may mean a baptism administered on a confession of Jesus as Lord and Christ (cf. Acts 22:16), or it may be a general characterization of the baptism as related to Jesus and not a formula pronounced at the baptism. In the later history the only formula regularly attested as pronounced by the administrator includes the triune name, but in Matthew it too may be descriptive rather than formulaic. If Matthew 28:19 is not a formula, then there is no necessary contradiction to the description “in the name of the Lord” in Acts and Paul" (Ferguson, p. 136, qtd in http://lhim.org/gladtidings/articles/Is_Matthew_28:19_Authentic_or_a_Forgery_by_Rev__Sean_Finnegan_issue_106.pdf)He offers a theory with no evidence to back it up which is why he couches it in speculative language.
Are you now wishing to retract that Ferguson quote you made?
I wrote: The reason speculative language is used by Finnegan and Ferguson is likely due to there being no examples in scripture or early Apostolic Fathers of such a baptismal rite.
What exactly are you defining as a "Baptismal rite"?
Just what Ferguson, the scholar you quoted described which was the person performing the baptism did so in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit while the person being baptized made a confession of baptism in Christ. That is the rite I was referring to.
If your guy Ferguson is correct, then why don’t the Apostolic Fathers mention that the person being baptized had to confess to doing so in Christ’s name? Instead, the Apostolic Fathers mention what the person performing the baptism said and did without indicating a confessional type statement being necessary on the part of the person being baptized. I don’t recall any of the early Fathers recording a confessional consistent with Ferguson on the part of the person being baptized. Later ones may have.
Multiple quotes from the Fathers are, in fact, describing baptismal rites, in what name they should be said in (Father Son and Holy Spirit), and how the person ought to be dipped, or sprinkled, depending on the availability.
But where do any other them describe what was required of the person being baptized as your guy Ferguson speculated?
Do you wish to retract your citation?
As for "speculative language," how about you quote Finnegan and make clear what you are talking about and what you are disputing?
From p15 of Finnegan:
However we work out the seeming contradiction, our difficulty here does not warrant changing what Scripture says to read more smoothly.
That was just before he states not all New Testament scripture is authentic.
Do you wish to retract your scholarly citation?
If it is on the genuineness of that verse, then, no, Finnegan never expresses doubt on the validity of that verse.
Yet he admits controversy and apparent contradiction. Ferguson’s theory that you quoted was couched in cautionary language.
Do you wish to retract your citation?
I wrote: 2 Co 13:14 does not establish divinity of the Holy Spirit because it does not rule out agency… power of attorney.
Are you even conscious? Read the verse:
You must not be married. Having a civil discussion with you is most difficult.
Yes I read it. Since we haven’t ruled out agency on the part of the Holy Spirit we would need to do so. To you, all of this seems easy since you grew up accepting it from birth without ever assembling and grappling with the entire body of scripture but it took the Church centuries to work through all of this and arrive at a doctrine.
That having been said, I agree 2 Co 13:14 shows Paul in his benediction advancing a step towards doctrine from where he had been in 1 Co 16:23 “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.” In 2 Co 13:14 The triadic elements are now present in Paul’s benediction where they were not present in his first letter to the Corinthians. We can clearly see Paul’s developing understanding of the nature of God..
2Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
What would the Holy Spirit be doing operating as an agent here? What is He agencying? Fellowship? Or is this another one of your "editorial mistakes"?
The snide tone of your comment tells me that you remain out of your league. Otherwise, you would understand that Paul, the disciples and other apostles were Jews and Jewish tradition was that agents assisted God in the creation. This belief took two parts; First, there were conceptual emanations from God such as Wisdom (Prov 8), Word and the Spirit (Gen 1). Law is also an emanation but is closely related to Word. Prov 8 says Wisdom was present at the creation assisting God and in verse 30 says “Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him.” (KJV).
So your sources range from a hundred years ago to 40 years ago? Can you name any contemporary scholar who would claim that the verse in Matthew is not genuine and why, exactly, they do so?
Why? Didn’t your scholar Finnegan in 2009 admit to an apparent contradiction and that New Testament scripture is not 100 percent authentic.?
Didn’t Finnegan in turn quote Ferguson who you also directly quoted as offering up a theory using speculative language without evidence to support his theory? Is it really Ferguson’s theory or did Ferguson copy it from an earlier writer? Didn’t I say in my previous post that your guy Ferguson probably got his theory from J. Crehan, "Early Christian Baptism and the Creed, (1950) p.25, p.76., p.79-p.84? As I recall from Crehan, the Ferguson quote reads like a direct copy of Crehans theory. I’d hate to think you quoted a plagiarist.
Would you like to retract your citations?
Your original point is false, since it stands on disputing the validity of certain verses and ignoring lots more.
No. You simply refuse to recognize that New Testament writers developed over many decades material for the Trinity and that it took the Church centuries to formalize it as doctrine. Because you accepted the doctrine at VBS years ago doesn’t mean it is as simple as you want to believe it is.
Just as many of Christ’s own disciples may have died not having a full understanding of the nature of God as revealed to them, so too is the case for persons coming from a non-Trinitarian background. Your smug condescension is going to be very offputting to them.
I’m on a business trip and don’t know what my schedule will be like to continue this discussion.
Then a simple reply to #152 should be easy.
Well, let's define all of this. One of the great dangers of cults for the uninformed is that they redefine everything. They might say something that, on the surface, a Christian might agree with, and yet mean something very different than what Christians do or the Bible.
So, what do you mean by "Christ died as an atonement for our sins?" Now I have never met any anti-trinitarian group that didn't also qualify or distort a doctrine like this in some way, or at least made the atonement as almost irrelevant for their salvation. When we hear 'atoned for sins," we believe that it is effective, and consider ourselves cleaned totally by the blood of Christ and not by anything that we earn by our merits. The difference between our views and others is that ours sees Christ's sacrifice as all sufficient for us, while others teach that something more must be added to it in order for us to get to heaven. In some way, their sins always remain, while we believe we have been washed clean.
It seems as if anti-Trinitarianism and teaching a merit-based plan of salvation are mystically intertwined in some way, almost as if God or the devil does not allow you to have one without the other. Even the Catholics, who have a merit based soteriology, manage to molest the Trinity in a subtle way through their teachings on Mary, wherein they place her as practically a fourth member of the Godhead, with all the powers and authority over sin that Christ would have ordinarily in other Christian denominations.
Hence we find teachings that make the practice of praying the rosary to be something that is necessary for salvation, without which Christ, whose blood did not really atone for our sins, will judge us harshly for:
“Later on, when she was at prayer she fell into ecstasy and had a vision of her soul appearing before the Supreme Judge [Christ]. Saint Michael put all her penances and to her prayers on one side of the scale and all her sins and imperfections on the other. The tray of her good works were greatly outweighed by that of her sins and imperfections. Filled with alarm, she cried out for mercy, imploring the help of the Blessed Virgin, her gracious advocate, who took the one and only Rosary she had said for her penance and dropped it on the tray of her good works. This one Rosary was so heavy that it weighed more than all her sins as well as her good works. Our Lady then reproved her for having refused to follow the counsel of her servant Dominic and for not saying the Rosary every day." (The Secret of the Rosary, http://www.rosary-center.org/secret.htm)
Notice that the sins are still present in this imagined scenario, being weighed against their good works, which themselves were still not good enough until the rosary was added. Now what are those sins doing there if Christ atoned for them? And why is it the rosary, and not Christ, that ultimately does the saving work?
In the case of the Mormons, whom your logic would make Christians, they do not even agree with us on where their version of the atonement took place. According to them, it took place in the garden of Gethsemane:
"It was in Gethsemane that Jesus took on Himself the sins of the world, in Gethsemane that His pain was equivalent to the cumulative burden of all men, in Gethsemane that He descended below all things so that all could repent and come to Him" (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg.15)
"To possess a testimony of Jesus is to know that He voluntarily took upon Himself the sins of all mankind in the Garden of Gethsemane, which caused Him to suffer in both body and spirit and to bleed from every pore. All this He did so that we would not have to suffer if we would repent. (See D&C 19:16, 18.)" (Ezra Taft Benson, “Valiant in the Testimony of Jesus,” Ensign, May 1982 [April Conference issue], 62)
Secondly, they do not even believe that this "bleeding from every pore" actually atones for every sin. Some sins, for example, can only be atoned for by the shedding of a person's own blood:
"Just a word or two now, on the subject of blood atonement. What is that doctrine? Unadulterated, if you please, laying aside the pernicious insinuations and lying charges that have so often been made, it is simply this: Through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. Salvation is twofold: General -- that which comes to all men irrespective of a belief (in this life) in Christ -- and, Individual -- that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. But man may commit certain grievous sins -- according to his light and knowledge -- that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone -- so far as in his power lies -- for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail. Do you believe this doctrine? If not, then I do say you do not believe in the true doctrine of the atonement of Christ. This is the doctrine you are pleased to call the "blood atonement of Brighamism." This is the doctrine of Christ our Redeemer, who died for us. This is the doctrine of Joseph Smith, and I accept it." (McConkie, Bruce R., ed. Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, pp. 133 - 135, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1955)
Now notice several things:
1) Some sins are not atoned for by the blood of Christ.
Christ's blood, therefore, is anemic in that it does not have all power to wash away every sin. It can only go so far.
2) Christ's sacrifice is twofold, one general, regardless of one's belief, and the other individual, "that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel."
The LDS teaches a type of universalism wherein most people are going to end up in one of three heavens according to the merits of individual men and women. Those who were righteous Mormons in life, who went through all the necessary hoops, had their temple recommends, learned the handshakes, get married (though you can always get married even after death provided the LDS on earth seal someone to you), etc., have the opportunity to enter the third and highest "Celestial" heaven, wherein they will become exalted human beings (Gods) and reign over their own worlds.
Christians, and infidels alike, will get sorted into the lesser glories based upon their own personal merits. While they do not suffer the torments of fire, their own personal hell is that they will forever be in eternal envy of the Mormons in the Celestial heaven:
"This earth will become a celestial kingdom when it is sanctified. Those who enter the terrestrial kingdom will have to go to some other sphere which will be prepared for them. Those who enter the telestial kingdom, likewise will have to go to some earth which is prepared for them, and there will be another place which is hell where the devil and those who are punished to go with him will dwell. Of course, those who enter the telestial kingdom, and those who enter the terrestrial kingdom will have the eternal punishment which will come to them in knowing that they might, if they had kept the commandments of the Lord, have returned to his presence as his sons and his daughters. This will be a torment to them, and in that sense it will be hell." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, v. 2, p. 210)
(Maybe that is why Mitt Romney always looked so smug when he was being criticized during the debates. He was awash in the better-than-youness that Mormon theology creates.)
Thus the Mormons make of Christ and his atonement almost nothing at all. In the one case, it does not actually justify a person who places their faith in Him. Whether they believe or not, they will be sorted into one of the three heavenly glories based on their merits. And if they do believe, this only opens the door for them to "obey," in which case, if they fail to obey, their faith gives them nothing, and they will not be able to be with their families in the afterlife or to become a god of their own planet.
(That's another thing. Mormons only get to possess their "forever families" so long as the family itself is obedient. If not, they will face eternal separation.)
This is the same case with the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Oneness Pentecostals, the Armstrongites, and every other anti-Trinitarian group I have ever heard of. Always, in some way, they deny the value of Christ's atonement and require something extra in order to merit heavenly rewards.
So, what is it that you mean when you imagine your hypothetical person saying "I believe in the atonement of Christ?" If it is the Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, or whatever standpoint, it means nothing. They might say they believe that, but they don't really believe it when you learn their teachings. They are not Christian from stage one.
Secondly, what do you mean by: "if such person does not share your exact understanding of the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit that such person is damned?"
First, what kind of person is this? Is this a confessing Mormon or Jehovah's Witness or an Armstrongite? By definition, if they confess their own theologies, they do not even believe that Christ will save them. Maybe they might depend on Christ getting them part way to heaven(s), but the rest is always up to them.
If so, these people are damned, beyond any doubt, and they must flee their religions in order to be saved.
But are you referring perhaps to a person who is simply ignorant of the Trinity or misunderstands it? Maybe even a hypothetical person who denies it and yet still maintains salvation by grace through faith alone?
Well, before I go into this, there is something that must be said first:
There is a difference between a person with true saving faith and a heretic, and that is, the former possess the Holy Spirit, while the latter does not.
What that means is this: a Christian, who is filled by the spirit of God, is regenerated and cannot help but to be in a condition of lifelong sanctification (improvement). That is the benefit of the Holy Spirit. Even before salvation, the scripture teaches that all those whom the Father has given to the Son do come to Him infallibly (John 6:37-39). None are left idle, but must inevitably come to the point where they will believe in Christ and be saved by Him. They will "all [be] taught of God," and all those so taught by the Father "cometh unto Him" (John 6:45). Conversion in every instance is always a supernatural event, not having to do with "flesh and blood," but is a supernatural revelation from "my Father which is in heaven" (Matt 16:17). We do not reason our ways to heaven. We do not get convinced by great arguments that Christ is the Messiah. Not even miracles shown to us on Earth convince us. We are taught this knowledge through supernatural means, with a new heart capable of hearing, and so are saved.
This is why so many people describe their salvation experience as being almost dragged, some "kicking and screaming," the way Kirsten Powers described her conversion to Christianity. These people are drawn by the Father, and cannot avoid being drawn, but like Paul are stopped on the road to Damascus by a blinding light, scorching away their eyes of flesh so that they may gain new eyes with which to see the Spirit. While not everyone is literally having Paul's experience, their conversion is no less miraculous.
Next, once a person is so saved, the Holy Spirit is not done with them, but continues to work on them for the rest of their lives. Thus the scripture teaches that what the Spirit has "begun," He will surely continue to "perform... until the day of Jesus Christ" (Php 1:6). Again, the scripture teaches that it is God who "works in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure" (Php 2:13). We are not free from His influences after conversion, but, like the church as a whole, we are "semper reformanda," always to be reformed, and I will add, always being reformed.
Built on this foundation, can I say that a person may misunderstand or be totally ignorant of the Trinity and yet still be saved? Sure. The Thief on the cross certainly would not have been able to articulate the trinity, yet he was saved entirely by faith on the cross. Ray Comfort of Living Waters Ministries once replied that he also did not know anything about the Trinity at first, but only came to know it later. Would Ray Comfort have been damned because of his misunderstanding and ignorance? Definitely not.
But the difference between Comfort and the average heretic is this: The former has the Holy Spirit and has in Him a driving force for truth, while the latter, even after multiple admonitions, is not saved, because he is nothing more than a damned stone. And this is how we are taught to regard heretics in the scripture:
"A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." (Tit 3:10-11)
Note that: after the first and second admonition, we are to reject this person, not regard them as simply confused and yet still our brothers in Christ because matters of doctrine are "controversial."
We haven’t gotten to that point of identifying which scriptural references to the Holy Spirit are more suggestive of a conscious being versus a dynamic force/presence.
I do not know what you are blabbering about, but if you confess that the Holy Spirit is a "person," either an angel or some unidentified Spirit being who apparently created the world but is still not God, then we certainly have gotten to that point.
But I have a feeling that you are both a sophist and an Armstrongite, and this combination means that you can't confess the Holy Spirit to be a person of any kind, while at the same time you won't want to be held down by any affirmative statement about anything even after making an affirmative statement.
Where did I deny authenticity? I didn’t. I merely pointed out that controversy exists concerning whether it is an exact quote of Christ, or a paraphrasing reflecting late 1st century church practice.
An absurd position then. You will not deny authenticity, and so you won't defend your apparent denial of its authenticity; at the same time, you will not affirm authenticity, because you claim controversy exists over it.
How ridiculous is that? There is controversy over tons of scripture by the religious cults. The Mormons deny that the Scripture is accurate, while the Jehovah's Witnesses claim that they have superior knowledge in Greek and therefore can translate it better. Thus they just rewrite the scriptures they do not like, especially those which affirm that Christ is God, which you yourself claim to believe.
The fallacy of your comment (and your post in general is entirely fallacious, there is nothing good about it) is that it pretends that just because any idiot can doubt something that it counts as evidence to either dismiss it or, at least, to ignore it and not consider it.
By the way, you repeatedly mischaracterize Finnegan's article.
Finnegan only admits controversy with cults like the Oneness Pentecostals or Unitarians who are mentioned in the footnotes. In the same article, he says there is a lack of controversy on a scholarly level:
"I have found no controversy over the authenticity of this text anywhere. Not only do all extant Greek manuscripts with Matthew 28:19 in them contain the traditional reading, but all of the church fathers in the second and third century that quote or allude to it use the traditional version." (p.7-9)
You also claim that Finnegan claimed that there are "apparent contradiction" in the scripture, when all he said was that there was a "seeming" contradiction, and therefore no real contradiction at all. That's a pretty direct distortion of his words.
Furthermore, you accused Finnegan of claiming that he does not believe all of the scripture is authentic. This you base on his statement:
"We are fortunate today to live in a time when the New Testament text is over 99% established based on centuries of discoveries, cataloging, and comparisons."
This number of 99 percent is a reference to this:
"As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition, there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000." (Matt Slick, Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability, http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence)
This is not a statement of "we believe the Bible is only 99.5 percent correct." It is a statement of to what percent the manuscripts say the same thing.
If your guy Ferguson is correct, then why don’t the Apostolic Fathers mention that the person being baptized had to confess to doing so in Christ’s name?
We have to make sure we're even discussing the same thing. You are mentioning Church Fathers who confirm the wording of a verse that you kinda sorta deny, in order to dispute just one of Ferguson's interpretations, in order to dispute the authenticity of the verses that the Church Fathers you are using confirm in the first place.
You do realize this is a circle of death for you, don't you?
I’m on a business trip and don’t know what my schedule will be like to continue this discussion.
Going to go meet Satan to get new orders?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.