Gifts of the Holy Ghost

[1689Dave]

Well baptizo is "to wash" so I wonder how many people have drowned while being washed?

Baptizing also means immersing in water.

 

[Lamb]

Baptizing also means immersing in water.

It does, but not always, which is the point. There were pieces of furniture in scripture that wasn't immersed and baptizo was used.

 

[1689Dave]

It does, but not always, which is the point. There were pieces of furniture in scripture that wasn't immersed and baptizo was used.

Good point. The real problem with Baptism is that Christ called for the Trinitarian formula, baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And the Apostles did so by baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ. Meaning Jesus Christ is the name of the triune YHWH in the NT. Any thoughts?

 

[Albion]

Good point. The real problem with Baptism is that Christ called for the Trinitarian formula, baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And the Apostles did so by baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ. Meaning Jesus Christ is the name of the triune YHWH in the NT. Any thoughts?

If there is any apparent conflict, baptisms performed using the first of those two formulas includes everything that's implied by the wording of the second one. But the reverse definitely is not true.

In addition, the first of these does have the nature of a confession of faith. The second one reads more like a description of the candidate's commitment.

There is no reason to think that joining Christ's church by affirming one's commitment to him as Lord and Savior means confessing that all the verses of scripture which affirm the Trinity are meaningless.

The real problem with Baptism is that Christ called for the Trinitarian formula, baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And the Apostles did so by baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ.

Are you contending that the Apostles defied Christ by refusing to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost?

And what sense would it make for the Apostles to baptize someone who had committed himself to Christ by declining to perform the baptism in the way Christ had told them all to do it???

 

[1689Dave]

If there is any apparent conflict, baptisms performed using the first of those two formulas includes everything that's implied by the wording of the second one. But the reverse definitely is not true.

In addition, the first of these does have the nature of a confession of faith. The second one reads more like a description of the candidate's commitment.

There is no reason to think that joining Christ's church by affirming one's commitment to him as Lord and Savior means confessing that all the verses of scripture which affirm the Trinity are meaningless.


Are you contending that the Apostles defied Christ by refusing to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost?

And what sense would it make for them to baptize someone who had committed himself to Christ by the Apostle declining to do what Christ had told them all to do???

Just sayin, we got a problem. You explain it.

 

[Albion]

Well, there are a number of apparent conflicts that we find in the bible. But most are not as much a problem as is supposed by a few people. This one that we're discussing would seem to be in that category. Almost every Christian church uses the Triune formula as found in the Gospel of Matthew, while only one denomination of any note--and it's usually called a cult--denounces the practice. In other words, I don't think that "we got a problem."

 

[1689Dave]

Well, there are a number of apparent conflicts that we find in the bible. But most are not as much a problem as is supposed by a few people. This one that we're discussing would seem to be in that category. Almost every Christian church uses the Triune formula as found in the Gospel of Matthew, while only one denomination of any note--and it's usually called a cult--denounces the practice. In other words, I don't think that "we got a problem."

The cult picked up on the discrepancy but didn't understand what Jesus was getting at. Apparently, most churches don't either. I'm a trinitarian but understand Jesus Christ is the NT name of the triune YHWH. Granville Sharp's rule translates other passages this way, that Jesus is YHWH (the trinity) in the flesh.

 

[Albion]

The cult picked up on the discrepancy but didn't understand what Jesus was getting at.

That could be, but my point was that out of all the different denominations, with all of their doctrinal diversity, there is almost total unity among Christians on this particular matter of the formula to be used in baptism, yet you seem to be talking as though it's the opposite. Or that there is an unresolved controversy among Christians.

Apparently, most churches don't either. I'm a trinitarian but understand Jesus Christ is the NT name of the triune YHWH.

Why would that cause you to say that the Apostles didn't use the baptismal formula Christ himself told them to use?

Granville Sharp's rule translates other passages this way, that Jesus is YHWH (the trinity) in the flesh.

Jesus did a lot of talking to himself, if that's true. And that would make parts of the NT nearly unintelligible. For example, he prayed to the Father before the Crucifixion that he might be spared this suffering if possible, so what was he doing all night? Giving himself a pep talk?

But as concerns the rule of Grandville Sharp, it seems to me that the nature of the Trinity--that is to say, the Trinitarian belief as understood by Christians--resolves any apparent problem. The oneness of the Trinity does not suppose that there are not three distinct persona of that one God.

 

[Lees]

@Lees; If your gifts had not expired with the apostles, through whose hands the Holy Spirit distributed them, they would be spontaneous, not learned, and mimicked as they are today. And they would exist Churchwide throughout history, beyond the few sects claiming them today.

“God also bearing them (the Apostles) witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?” (Hebrews 2:4)

If the gifts of the Holy Ghost had expired, God would have told us? Instead, God told us that "...the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." You however say otherwise. In post #(4) you say the gifts ended. Which brought about my question in post #(8) where I asked, "where in Scripture do you support what you just said." Which you continue to ignore.

(Heb. 2:4) says that the there is distinction to be made between 'signs and wonders', and 'miracles' and 'gifts of the Holy Ghost'. Which I showed in post # (20).

And, you had to write in (the Apostles) because it doesn't say that. It says the message was confirmed by them that heard. Many people heard other than the Apostles. The Apostles were certainly involved. But so were many others.

Now, answer my questions. Start with post (8, 10, 15,17)

Lees

 

[Lees]

@Lees the member @1689Dave has asked you to pose your question in a different manner and you refuse and then you attempt to bully him here....that's part of the problem with what's going on. Please post your question in a different way.

The problem with what is going on is not me posting questions a different way. The questions are very clear. There is no other way for me to ask them.

I tell you what you do. Go to post #(8) and tell me a better way to post the question.

Why do you continue with this accusation of 'bullying'? He is the one who sought out this argument. Which is fine. And I showed you every question he avoided. And yet here you come accusing me of bullying.

Just because he is shown to not know the Scripture, and is also being deceptive in his method of arguing, is not 'bullying'.

The questions are definitely a problem for him. Because they show he is wrong. Why should I change them?

Lees

 

[Lamb]

The problem with what is going on is not me posting questions a different way. The questions are very clear. There is no other way for me to ask them.

I tell you what you do. Go to post #(8) and tell me a better way to post the question.

Why do you continue with this accusation of 'bullying'? He is the one who sought out this argument. Which is fine. And I showed you every question he avoided. And yet here you come accusing me of bullying.

Just because he is shown to not know the Scripture, and is also being deceptive in his method of arguing, is not 'bullying'.

The questions are definitely a problem for him. Because they show he is wrong. Why should I change them?

Lees

His answer is in post #12. It's an unacceptable answer to you, but it IS his answer. He answered your question according to his beliefs.

 

[1689Dave]

If the gifts of the Holy Ghost had expired, God would have told us? Instead, God told us that "...the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." You however say otherwise. In post #(4) you say the gifts ended. Which brought about my question in post #(8) where I asked, "where in Scripture do you support what you just said." Which you continue to ignore.

(Heb. 2:4) says that the there is distinction to be made between 'signs and wonders', and 'miracles' and 'gifts of the Holy Ghost'. Which I showed in post # (20).

And, you had to write in (the Apostles) because it doesn't say that. It says the message was confirmed by them that heard. Many people heard other than the Apostles. The Apostles were certainly involved. But so were many others.

Now, answer my questions. Start with post (8, 10, 15,17)

Lees

Where are they today? Is anyone raising the dead lately? Paul said those speaking in tongues knew what they were saying. But that's not true in the charismatic movement. Why did Paul place all of his helpers on medicine in the Epistles if he still healed the sick then? Etc., etc.

 

[1689Dave]

That could be, but my point was that out of all the different denominations, with all of their doctrinal diversity, there is almost total unity among Christians on this particular matter of the formula to be used in baptism, yet you seem to be talking as though it's the opposite. Or that there is an unresolved controversy among Christians.


Why would that cause you to say that the Apostles didn't use the baptismal formula Christ himself told them to use?


Jesus did a lot of talking to himself, if that's true. And that would make parts of the NT nearly unintelligible. For example, he prayed to the Father before the Crucifixion that he might be spared this suffering if possible, so what was he doing all night? Giving himself a pep talk?

But as concerns the rule of Grandville Sharp, it seems to me that the nature of the Trinity--that is to say, the Trinitarian belief as understood by Christians--resolves any apparent problem. The oneness of the Trinity does not suppose that there are not three distinct persona of that one God.

Does not today's practice usurp the Apostles' authority? And violate Jesus' command on how to baptize? I heard the Pope did this in the second century. Up until then, the church went with scripture.

 

[Albion]

Does not today's practice usurp the Apostles' authority?

Apparently not, considering that the Bible record shows them willingly passing it on to other people in accordance with the needs of an expanding church.

And violate Jesus' command on how to baptize?

?? His command, given in Matthew, was to use the longer formula.

I heard the Pope did this in the second century. Up until then, the church went with scripture.

I don't know what it is that you are referring to here.

 

[1689Dave]

Apparently not, considering that the Bible record shows them willingly passing it on to other people in accordance with the needs of an expanding church.


?? His command, given in Matthew, was to use the longer formula.


I don't know what it is that you are referring to here.

I see it as a revelation of the Trinity in Jesus. Interpreted by the Apostles who used His name, Colossians 2:9. But in the second century, the Pope usurped their authority and changed it into today's more popular method. ( Baptism p 263-264 Catholic Encyclopedia).

 

[Albion]

I see it as a revelation of the Trinity in Jesus. Interpreted by the Apostles who used His name, Colossians 2:9. But in the second century, the Pope usurped their authority and changed it into today's more popular method. ( Baptism p 263-264 Catholic Encyclopedia).

Here's what I found on this topic in the Catholic Encyclopedia--

"There has been a theological controversy over the question as to whether baptism in the name of Christ only was ever held valid...Thus St. Paul (Acts 19) commands some disciples at Ephesus to be baptized in Christ's name: 'They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.' In Acts 10, we read that St. Peter ordered others to be baptized 'in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.' Those who were converted by Philip. (Acts 8) 'were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ,' and above all we have the explicit command of the Prince of the Apostles: 'Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins' (Acts 2).

"Owing to these texts some theologians have held that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ only....The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that the terms 'in the name of Jesus,' and 'in the name of Christ,' either refer to baptism in the faith taught by Christ, or are employed to distinguish Christian baptism from that of John the Precursor. It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another."

However, other commentators, including Justin Martyr, indicate that the Triune formula was in use from the first century onward, and I cannot find anywhere that says that some Pope ordered a change from the simpler form to the longer one.

 

[1689Dave]

Here's what I found on this topic in the Catholic Encyclopedia--

"There has been a theological controversy over the question as to whether baptism in the name of Christ only was ever held valid...Thus St. Paul (Acts 19) commands some disciples at Ephesus to be baptized in Christ's name: 'They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.' In Acts 10, we read that St. Peter ordered others to be baptized 'in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.' Those who were converted by Philip. (Acts 8) 'were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ,' and above all we have the explicit command of the Prince of the Apostles: 'Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins' (Acts 2).

"Owing to these texts some theologians have held that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ only....The most probable opinion, however, seems to be that the terms 'in the name of Jesus,' and 'in the name of Christ,' either refer to baptism in the faith taught by Christ, or are employed to distinguish Christian baptism from that of John the Precursor. It seems altogether unlikely that immediately after Christ had solemnly promulgated the trinitarian formula of baptism, the Apostles themselves would have substituted another."

However, other commentators, including Justin Martyr, indicate that the Triune formula was in use from the first century onward, and I cannot find anywhere that says that some Pope ordered a change from the simpler form to the longer one.

It remains, who but the Catholics had the power to undercut Christ and the Apostles to the point the whole of Christendom practices the Catholic model? I see it clearly possibly because I want to see it.

 

[Albion]

It remains, who but the Catholics had the power to undercut Christ and the Apostles to the point the whole of Christendom practices the Catholic model?

What makes you think any of these was undercutting Christ in this matter? How could it amount to undercutting Christ for the Apostles to baptize converts and use the exact wording that, according to Matthew's Gospel, they had received directly from Christ himself along with the instruction to go forth into the world (which we know they did) and then baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?

As for shorter version which you favor, it's not as though the two wordings are mutually exclusive, either. What I've read of the history of the early church suggests that both versions--plus some other variations--were used by different groups in those early days.

Plus, it's a stretch to say that there even was a Roman Catholic Church with a Pope at the time you are referring to. The Eastern patriarchates and other branches of the faith that had been planted from India to Britain were not beholden to the Roman bishop at that time.

I see it clearly possibly because I want to see it.

Ahh. I guess that's the answer.

 

[1689Dave]

What makes you think any of these was undercutting Christ in this matter? How could it amount to undercutting Christ for the Apostles to baptize converts and use the exact wording that, according to Matthew's Gospel, they had received directly from Christ himself along with the instruction to go forth into the world (which we know they did) and then baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?

As for shorter version which you favor, it's not as though the two wordings are mutually exclusive, either. What I've read of the history of the early church suggests that both versions--plus some other variations--were used by different groups in those early days.

Plus, it's a stretch to say that there even was a Roman Catholic Church with a Pope at the time you are referring to. The Eastern patriarchates and other branches of the faith that had been planted from India to Britain were not beholden to the Roman bishop at that time.


Ahh. I guess that's the answer.

Do you believe the Papacy is the Antichrist? All of the Reformed creeds I can think of, including your old Westminster Confession, have it in writing. This would surely show how the Papacy replaced Christ and the Apostles earlier than expected.

 

[Albion]

Do you believe the Papacy is the Antichrist? All of the Reformed creeds

No. But what does that have to do with what we were discussing, anyway?

I can think of, including your old Westminster Confession, have it in writing.

The Westminster Confession is not an Anglican credal statement, so it is ridiculous to refer to it as "your old Westminster Confession."

What's more, you made that mistake earlier, and I corrected you. So what's the point in restating it again, even if it had anything to do with this particular discussion??

This would surely show how the Papacy replaced Christ and the Apostles earlier than expected.

Even if that were so, it isn't what you claimed a few posts ago and which I responded to.

What you wrote was this--

I heard the Pope did this in the second century. Up until then, the church went with scripture.

This must be another instance of you deciding to believe something, true or not, simply because you prefer to believe it, no??