The Nicene Creed is not Christian

[ewq1938]

ewq,

Don't you understand the folly of what you are promoting. You claim that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God but you want to accept someone as being Christian who believes in another god, a unitarian god.

You have not proven they worship a false god anymore than they prove Trinitarians worship a false god. The level of judgment on both sides is despicable. Besides, not fully understanding the Trinity doesn't equal a different God, nor a false gospel. It's merely a lack of knowledge about God.

 

[OzSpen]

You have not proven they worship a false god anymore than they prove Trinitarians worship a false god. The level of judgment on both sides is despicable. Besides, not fully understanding the Trinity doesn't equal a different God, nor a false gospel. It's merely a lack of knowledge about God.

So is the worship of a unitarian god OK with you and the unitarian god is not a false god? Is that your view?

 

[OzSpen]

Everyone,

Salvation is conditional. If we want eternal life, we have to accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior, meaning we must obey everything He commands us.

How do we know? Jesus says "if you love Me, keep My commands." If we don't love Jesus, there is no salvation. It is that simple concept.

Which Jesus? The one who is associated with your unitarian, Arian god?

 

[ewq1938]

So is the worship of a unitarian god OK with you and the unitarian god is not a false god? Is that your view?

I don't care for the "god" of anyone who is wrongly and/or judgmental. That wasn't clear enough before?

 

[OzSpen]

Jesus was a person not a spirit therefore the opposite is also true, a spirit is not a person. Thus, the Holy Spirit is not a person. A person has a body soul and spirit as Jesus had.

You don't seem to know the difference between a human person and a divine person. These are the biblical reasons why the Holy Spirit is a person:

How do we know the Holy Spirit is a person?

One potential argument that the Holy Spirit is a person is to look at the Greek words in John 14:26, 15:26, and 16:13-14. There we see that the antecedent of the masculine ἐκεῖνος (a masculine word for “that person”) is πνεῦμα (a neuter word for “Spirit”). Hence, so the argument goes, the Spirit is a person. Unfortunately, that argument likely doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

A more fruitful approach is first to ask a question almost no one asks: how do we know that the Father is a person? How about the Son?
The answer is that the Bible presents a person as a substance that can do personal and relational things (such as speaking, thinking, feeling, acting). Something that does these personal things in relationship—like God, angels, and human beings—is a person.

How does the Holy Spirit fare up under this criteria?
1. The Spirit teaches and reminds.

John 14:26, “the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
1 Corinthians 2:13, “We impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

2. The Spirit speaks.
Acts 8:29, “the Spirit said to Philip, ‘Go over and join this chariot.’
Acts 13:2, “While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.'”

3. The Spirit makes decisions.

Acts 15:28, “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements.”
3. The Spirit can be grieved.

Ephesians 4:30, “do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.”

4. The Spirit can be outraged.

Hebrews 10:29, “How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has . . . outraged the Spirit of grace?”

5. The Spirit can be lied to.
Acts 5:3, 4, “why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit? . . . You have not lied to men but to God‘”

6. The Spirit can forbid or prevent human speech and plans.

Acts 16:6-7, “they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them.”

7. The Spirit searches everything and comprehends God’s thoughts.

1 Corinthians 2:10-11, “the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. . . . no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.”

8. The Spirit apportions spiritual gifts.

1 Corinthians 12:11, “the same Spirit . . . apportions [spiritual gifts] to each one individually as he wills.”

9. The Spirit helps us, intercedes for us, and has a mind.

Romans 8:26-27, “the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.”

10. The Spirit bears witness to believers about their adoption

Romans 8:16, “The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.”

11. The Spirit bears witness to Christ.

“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.

12. The Spirit glorifies Christ, takes what is Christ, and declares it to believers.

John 16:14, “He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” (source: The Gospel Coalition).

So here I have given you a stack of biblical evidence to support the theology of the Holy Spirit being a person.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Yes, I am a non-trin.

Jesus says He is Son of God and Savior or the world. That's what I believe. Jesus nor anyone of His apostles said God the Father, Son and the HS make one God. I skip the rest to make my point clear.

Blessings.

Joyful,

You conveniently miss verses that contradict your view - verses the state that Jesus is God:

1. Matt 1:23 (ESV), '“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).
2. Jesus possesses attributes that only deity can have: (1) being eternal (John 8:58); (2) omnipresence (Matt 18:20; 28:20); (3) omniscience (Matt 16:21); and (4) omnipotence (Jn 11:38-44).

Why do you pursue a human-created, non-Trinitarian doctrine when clearly the Scriptures demonstrate that Jesus is God?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

You have not proven they worship a false god anymore than they prove Trinitarians worship a false god. The level of judgment on both sides is despicable. Besides, not fully understanding the Trinity doesn't equal a different God, nor a false gospel. It's merely a lack of knowledge about God.

ewq,

Unitarians (i.e. Arians, non-Trinitarians) worship a false God because this is the God revealed in Scripture:

God, the Father, is regarded as God. ‘For on him God the Father has set his seal’ (Jn 6:27 ESV); ‘God our Father’ (Rm 1:7 ESV); ‘God the Father’ and ‘God the Father’ (Gal 1:1, 3). Isn’t that clear enough? The Father is God.

God, the Son, is regarded as God. He has the attributes of deity: (1) Eternity (Jn 1:15; 8:58; 17:5, 24); (2) Omniscience (Jn 4:24; 16:30; 21:17); (3) Omnipresence (Mt 18:20; 28:20; Jn 3:13); (4) Omnipotence. ‘I am the Almighty’ (Rev 1:8); Heb 1:3; Mt 28:18; (5) Immutable (Heb 1:12; 13:8); (6) He does the actions of deity: creator (Jn 1:3; Heb 1:10; Col 1:16); holds things together (Col 1:17; Heb 1:3); forgives sin (Mt 9:2, 6); raises the dead (Jn 6:39-40, 54; 11:25; 20:25, 28); he will be the Judge (Jn 5:22) of believers (2 Cor 5:10), of Antichrist and his followers (Rev 19:15), the nations (Ac 17:31), Satan (Gen 3:15) and the living and the dead (Ac 10:42).

God, the Holy Spirit, is regarded as God. The Holy Spirit is a person. Take John 16:13 as an example. the neuter
substantive pneuma [Spirit] is referred to by the masculine pronoun ekeinos [he], thus recognising the Holy Spirit not as a neuter ‘it’ but as a person, ‘he’. He is the Comforter/Helper (Jn 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). No ‘it’ can do this. The Holy Spirit has the attributes of Deity. He is eternal (Heb 9:14), omniscient (1 Cor 2:10-11; Jn 14:26; 16:12-13), omnipotent (Lk 1:35), omnipresent (Ps 139:7-10). And have a guess what? He does the works of deity in creation (Ps 104:30), regeneration (Jn 3:5), giving us Scripture (2 Pt 1:21; and raising the dead (Rm 8:11).

So does that satisfy you that the god of anti-Trinitarianism (unitarianism) is a false god when compared with the Trinitarian God revealed in Scripture?

The theological strife that was happening in the church in the 4th century - including Arian anti-Trinitarianism - was addressed at the Council of Nicaea in A D 325. The outcome of that Council was the Nicene Creed. It summarised the orthodox doctrine of Christianity to refute Arianism.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I don't care for the "god" of anyone who is wrongly and/or judgmental. That wasn't clear enough before?

I don't understand what you mean. Are you accusing me of being judgmental about unitarians?

 

[Joyful]

Which Jesus? The one who is associated with your unitarian, Arian god?

Who made you a judge of His followers?

I will not go into argument of man-made doctrine. It is so unchristian like.

BTW, I already claimed My God is Jesus' God who were sent to take a way the sin of the world.

good day.

 

[HammerStone]

I don't care for the "god" of anyone who is wrongly and/or judgmental. That wasn't clear enough before?

Then I am not sure you even understand why you need Jesus. We are condemned without Christ, and that absolutely requires that God must pass judgment at some point. Your theology is born of a relativist framework where you repeatedly chastise others for having opinions, yet your own opinions and feelings are the very things you put forth as reasoning for your beliefs!

As the NLT does a solid and simple job of phrasing:

Matthew 7:1-2 NLT
Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged.

We will be judged by a Holy God, but thankfully and blessedly we are judged by righteousness we are imputed from Jesus.

 

[Joyful]

Hammer,

I have much to say about your comment but since I am not allowed in this area I will continue in unorthox forum.

See you there, friend.

blessings.

 

[Wormwood]

zeke,

Thanks for your well thought-out response.

A cardinal rule I follow and teach is that we are never to put two Scriptures in conflict with one another. Instead, we add the information together, with each verse giving more information on the same subject so that we receive a complete picture of that which is being taught. If we perceive that two Scriptures are in conflict with one another, then we must continue to study them in context until we find the key that reveals they are not actually in conflict, rather they compliment one another.

I agree with the law of non-contradiction as it applies to the Bible. However, your example does not fit this category. I will explain below:

So, let’s look at Acts 8 in answer to your question above.

Acts 8:12 KJV, “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of [Yahoshua the] Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” Belief came first, baptism was not part of that experience. Baptism was subsequent to the believing in Christ and His shed Blood.

Acts 8:13 KJV, “Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.” The same scenario repeats itself here, first belief and then that was followed by baptism.

Acts 8:36-37 KJV, “37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that [Yahoshua the] Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.” Here it is pointed out that Philip confirmed the eunuch’s belief, prior to baptism. Once again, baptism is not a requirement to complete the salvation process. Instead, it is a requirement to complete the salvation process prior to a meaningful baptism. In other words, one can get baptized all day long for naught, except that one first believes.

These are not the only examples available in the NT.

First, it is important to understand that we should draw our understanding about the meaning and significance of baptism from the didactic passages. Passages that give clear teaching about what baptism means should be our guide for understanding how the NT church understood it. We need to be very cautious about using narratives as a means of defining the conversion process. As I am sure you know, the narratives in the NT are seldom to be considered "normative" in the life of the church. Otherwise, we should all expect to be healing each other with hankys and shadows.

So lets look at Acts 8:12. Yes, belief comes prior to baptism. Why would anyone baptize an unbeliever? This still doesnt change the meaning and significance of baptism. Clearly, in the context of Acts 2:38, the audience believes the message Peter preached about Jesus. If not, they wouldnt have been "cut to the heart." Yet their belief did not prevent Peter from also calling them to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and to be saved from "a wicked and corrupt generation." Obviously, if they had not believed, I doubt they would have asked "What shall we do?" and I doubt Peter would have called them to repent and be baptized.

Also, if we are going to look at Acts 8:12 as a guide for how things normally work in the conversion process, then you must conclude that someone does not recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit either at belief or baptism. In fact, the NT teaches that if "someone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ" (cf. Rom. 8). We see that the Samaritans do not recieve the Holy Spirit until Peter arrives and lays his hands on them in Acts 8:15. So, if we use this narrative as a guide, we are both wrong and salvation only comes at the laying on of an Apostles hands. I think what is evident from the book of Acts as a whole is that God uses Peter to bring in outside people groups initially. Peter is the one who is there to accept the Samaritans and he is also there to be the first one to accept the Gentiles (Acts 10). So, in my estimation, this is not a normative process, just as Pentecost is not normative. The normal way God gives the Spirit is not by swooping down in tongues of fire, or having an Apostle lay on hands. These are unusual events that mark something new and significant in the life of the church (the bestowal of the Spirit to the Apostles, the grafting in of the Samaritans into the church (Acts 8), the grafting in of the Gentiles into the church (Acts 10)). In my estimation, it is not wise to use these unusual and miraculous scenarios to determine the normative practices of the early Church. We should use the teaching of Peter and Paul for that, and we find that teaching in passages like Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21; Romans 6:1-3, etc.

Acts 8:36-37 KJV, “37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that [Yahoshua the] Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.” Here it is pointed out that Philip confirmed the eunuch’s belief, prior to baptism. Once again, baptism is not a requirement to complete the salvation process. Instead, it is a requirement to complete the salvation process prior to a meaningful baptism. In other words, one can get baptized all day long for naught, except that one first believes.

It is important to note that verse 37 was likely not penned by Luke. In fact, the earliest this verse appears is not until about 600AD. We have a great many texts that date before this time and none of them have this verse. Therefore, it seems this was added in because of someones theological concerns which do not reflect the inspired text. However, this passage is indeed important. It reflects that in a short period of time that Philip has this evangelistic encounter on this journey, he instructs the man about baptism. Why would the Ethiopian want so badly to be baptized and why would it even have been brought up in this conversation if it was merely an outward sign that had no real value or purpose in the disciple-making process?

I don’t agree that baptism is meaningless. We are commanded to do it, and we should for that reason alone. Also, this is one way to declare you belief in Christ before all men. We don’t want to be closet Christians. Our belief is a testimony to others.

Sure, thats good. However, I think the Bible not only commands us to do it, but explains why we do it. We do it to recieve forgiveness of sins, be clothed with Christ, die and be raised with Christ, and plead to God for a clean conscience. Those are the reasons given for baptism in the Bible. Moreover, saying, "We should do it because God commands it, but it doesnt actually have any role in making a disciple...its only a display of something that has already occurred" is a dangerous position in my view. After all, doesnt God command us to not lie? Doesnt he command us to not covet? Yes, we try to not lie or covet...but if we do, God's grace is there. People take this same mentality with baptism when they take the view you are implying. They make baptism some part of a legal code that is "commanded" and therefore becomes some sort of "law." Because we cant be saved by law, then it is viewed as a "work" and as a result is seen as trying to "add to" our salvation and is often discredited as a result. Also, I think we miss out on some real blessings God intends in baptism when we strip it of its power and make it merely a sign. Rather than looking at God's work at a particular time on a particular day to cleanse us and give us new life....we try to remember when we really believed and perhaps second guess during difficult times if we "really believed" with "saving faith." The power of baptism is that it places our trust in God's promises rather than the sincerity of our own inner convictions.

I think I would be opening up a whole other teaching if I responded to this. I’ve got enough on my plate right now. Let’s see where the first part leads us before we expand too much.

Probably a good idea :)

Since the shed Blood of Christ and the full meaning behind that is what Christianity is all about, at a minimum that should be the focus of any creed. But it goes beyond that - and I return to the OP - saying that water baptism forgives sin is to me a direct affront against the shed Blood of Christ. An attack on the Blood is an attack on the Body of Christ and Christianity.

Look, I am not about defending Creeds. I think they are a bad idea because they make a standard for belief in something contrived by man rather than the Word of God. However, I do think you are making a mountain out of a molehill here. Obviously the blood of Jesus is the focus of our faith. I think the creed is simply quoting Acts 2:38. I dont know how quoting Scripture is an affront against the blood of Christ. I think your issue is more with Acts 2:38 than the creed.

 

[Wormwood]

Oz,

Thanks for responding.

Therefore, to become a disciple (learner) is a process that begins with conversion. Baptism is part of that learning process in becoming a disciple. Therefore, on this basis, I do not see baptism as you do. I understand it as NOT bringing about cleaning and salvation (your language), but being an obedient response of discipleship.

I disagree that baptism is part of the "learning process" or that being a disciple is somehow different from becoming a convert. I dont think the early church separated discipleship from salvation as we do today. Can you be a convert and not be a disciple? There is nothing in the life of the early church that suggests there are distinctions between saved people and followers of Jesus. The saved are followers of Jesus/the Way. Also, I would say that if baptism was simply part of the "learning process" than why would it be separated out from "teaching them everything I have commanded"? I think this indicates baptism falls into a different category than just part of the teaching process. I think this scholar has a much better explanation of the great commission, and is worth quoting at length:

Two participles follow the main verb (βαπτίζοντες, baptizontes, baptizing, διδάσκοντες, didaskontes, teaching) and specify the means by which the “nations” are to be discipled. The former describes the initiation process by which one is brought into a new relationship with the Father, … Son and … Holy Spirit. The prepositional phrase, in the name (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, eis to onoma) suggests that the goal of baptism is to transfer the initiate “into a relationship of belonging to the triune God.” Therefore baptism marks entry into a new sphere of commitment and allegiance, in which God’s will as disclosed in Jesus, is given priority (=kingdom). Although the text is implicitly trinitarian, the singular “name” emphasizes the unity of the triune God. It may be surprising that in spite of Jesus’ words to baptize “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” the early church regularly baptized “in the name of Jesus” (e.g., Acts 8:16; 19:5). However, as observed by Albright and Mann: “The mistake of so many writers on the New Testament lies in treating this saying as a liturgical formula (which it later became), and not as a description of what baptism accomplished.”

28:20. Critical to the discipling process is ongoing instruction of new disciples in order to ground them in the authoritative teachings of Jesus. As a discipling manual one could hardly do better than the Gospel of Matthew, which conveniently summarizes Jesus’ teachings in five major discourses (5:1–7:29; 10:5–42; 13:1–52; 18:1–35; 24:1–25:46). It is the responsibility of the church to lead new believers into an awareness of what life in the kingdom entails. Observe that Jesus does not give his followers the luxury of selecting portions of Jesus’ teachings which please them, while neglecting the rest (cf. 5:19). Life in the kingdom necessitates hearing and doing everything that Jesus has commanded. Jesus’ teachings are all-encompassing and speak to the total person concerning how to live in a manner pleasing to God.


Larry Chouinard, Matthew, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1997), Mt 28:19–20.

You inquired...

Practically, that's how it was for my wife and me. She was saved as a child but was not baptised until age 16, which she considers was too soon in her discipleship. I was saved at age 15 and was baptised at age 16 - again, too soon for me in my discipleship. If you want baptism to coincide with salvation and be part of the cleansing of salvation, then my wife and I were not saved until we were baptised. This is theology that I reject. I do not support baptismal regeneration. However, perhaps you have something else in mind and not baptismal regeneration.

First, I would say that I am basing my views on baptism from the teaching of the NT. It is not for me to say when someone is "saved" or not. I would simply argue that the Bible teaches that remissions of sins, the arrival of the Holy Spirit, etc are promised at baptism. I believe I have an obligation to teach what the NT teaches on the subject. If God chooses to save someone who has not been baptized because they didn't know any better, I have no doubt that in his grace that He can and would do such a thing. However, I am simply arguing that this is not what the NT teaches and therefore it is very dangerous for us to teach this as fact. Such a thought is based on the nature of God and not the teaching of the NT as it relates to the how one should respond to the Gospel. In terms of the lives of your and your wife, I would say something like, "You can be assured that you were cleansed and received the Holy Spirit when you, as believers, were baptized at 16."

My personal view is that baptism is only for adult believers. Thus, I would not believe in "baptismal regeneration." I think such notations belong to those who believe in God's saving power at work in baptism but apply it to infants. I think it is this view that has twisted baptism into making it some mystical event that puts the power in the water itself. Rather, baptism only has value when it is combined with faith and repentance. Thus, the water has no power in itself. It is simply the place God has promised to meet the sinner who seeks cleansing, renewal and the Holy Spirit. I believe that while children are scarred by the effects of sin, they are not accountable for their sin until they are older. Thus, there is no need for children to be baptized as they are already "saved." The Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these. It is only once they become aware and accountable for their sin do they need to trust Christ, repent, confess him and be baptized.

Does this make sense?

 

[ewq1938]

You don't seem to know the difference between a human person and a divine person. These are the biblical reasons why the Holy Spirit is a person:


So here I have given you a stack of biblical evidence to support the theology of the Holy Spirit being a person.

Oz

None of those listed qualify a bodiless spirit to be a person. A person is body soul and spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot be a person because it is the spirit OF a person. My own personal spirit would not be a new or different person than myself had I the power to send it forth to interact with others.

 

[ewq1938]

Then I am not sure you even understand why you need Jesus. We are condemned without Christ, and that absolutely requires that God must pass judgment at some point.

How in the world does this have to do with the current discussion? Nothing stated here is disagreed by me, nor was countered by anything I have posted. I simply do not believe we can judge someone as non-Christian if they don't understand the Trinity. Most Trinitarians don't even understand the Trinity properly. I think we have to leave out non-salvational things when deciding who is and who isn't a Christian.

If someone accepts Christ and believes he died for our sins and resurrected , then they are a Christian. If they don't understand the complexities of the Trinity, they simply lack that particular knowledge.

Your theology is born of a relativist framework where you repeatedly chastise others for having opinions, yet your own opinions and feelings are the very things you put forth as reasoning for your beliefs!

This isn't true. My beliefs are based on scripture, not my own opinions. I can cite scriptural support for anything. In the rare case I do have an opinion that can't be proven directly by scripture I have no issue admitting it.

 

[StanJ]

Yes, I am a non-trin.
Jesus says He is Son of God and Savior or the world. That's what I believe. Jesus nor anyone of His apostles said God the Father, Son and the HS make one God. I skip the rest to make my point clear.

If you acknowledge Him as your savior then you should KNOW He is God, by what He said;
Jesus said: I and the Father are one.
Jesus said: If you've seen me you've seen the Father.
Jesus said: If you knew me, you would know my Father also.
Jesus said: You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.
Jesus said: If you do not believe that I am He, you will indeed die in your sins.
Jesus said: You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am.
Jesus said: Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
Jesus said:“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
God said: "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
Is 43:11-12 (NIV)
I, yes I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior. I’ve revealed and saved and proclaimed, when there was no foreign god among you — and you are my witnesses,” declares the LORD.
God's word says;
John 1:18 (NIV)
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
Heb 1:8
But to the Son He says:
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.”
I suggest you discover exactly who Jesus is before you claim Him to be your savior.
The real savior is God.

 

[OzSpen]

Who made you a judge of His followers?

I will not go into argument of man-made doctrine. It is so unchristian like.

BTW, I already claimed My God is Jesus' God who were sent to take a way the sin of the world.

good day.

Joyful,

I am judging nobody. You have judged yourself by calling your view non-trin (i.e. non-Trinitarian). I have simply labelled what you have called yourself as Arian and Unitarian. That is the Arians and Unitarians are non-trin.

I'm not judging you personally. I'm comparing your doctrine with that of Scripture and find your non-Trinitarian position is not that defined in Scripture.

You talk about 'man-made doctrine' and you object to it. But that's exactly what you promote with your unitarianism.

Your claim is that 'BTW, I already claimed My God is Jesus' God who were sent to take a way the sin of the world'.

However, since you have non-Trinitarian doctrine and you want "My God is Jesus' God", you are not worshipping this Jesus revealed in Scripture:

God, the Son, is regarded as God. He has the attributes of deity: (1) Eternity (Jn 1:15; 8:58; 17:5, 24); (2) Omniscience (Jn 4:24; 16:30; 21:17); (3) Omnipresence (Mt 18:20; 28:20; Jn 3:13); (4) Omnipotence. ‘I am the Almighty’ (Rev 1:8); Heb 1:3; Mt 28:18; (5) Immutable (Heb 1:12; 13:8); (6) He does the actions of deity: creator (Jn 1:3; Heb 1:10; Col 1:16); holds things together (Col 1:17; Heb 1:3); forgives sin (Mt 9:2, 6); raises the dead (Jn 6:39-40, 54; 11:25; 20:25, 28); he will be the Judge (Jn 5:22) of believers (2 Cor 5:10), of Antichrist and his followers (Rev 19:15), the nations (Ac 17:31), Satan (Gen 3:15) and the living and the dead (Ac 10:42).

Please tell me, Joyful, if Paul is teaching Timothy to be a judge of false doctrine or not in 1 Tim 1:3-4 (ESV)? These verses state:

As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship[a] from God that is by faith.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Then I am not sure you even understand why you need Jesus. We are condemned without Christ, and that absolutely requires that God must pass judgment at some point. Your theology is born of a relativist framework where you repeatedly chastise others for having opinions, yet your own opinions and feelings are the very things you put forth as reasoning for your beliefs!

As the NLT does a solid and simple job of phrasing:

Matthew 7:1-2 NLT
Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged.

We will be judged by a Holy God, but thankfully and blessedly we are judged by righteousness we are imputed from Jesus.

Hammer,

That is extremely well said and of great insight. I would add that Christians have a responsibility before God to judge false doctrine from true teaching - truth from error. We know this from 1 John 4:1-6(ESV), which states,

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. 4 Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 5 They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

 

[OzSpen]

Wormwood,


You asked: 'Does this make sense?' No, it doesn't and I explained it as such in my previous post. 'Make disciples' is the main verb and the subordinate verbs are 'baptizing' and 'teaching'. So making disciples included baptism and teaching (Matt 28:18-20). As I explained, making disciples is not the same as making converts.

What Paul and Silas told the Philippian jailer was not, 'Become a disciple, be baptized and be taught' so that you will be saved. They taught him something much more straight forward than that, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved' (Acts 16:31 ESV). Yes, he was most certainly taught 'the word of the Lord (16:32) and 'he was baptized at once, he and all his family' (16:33). What did the jailer and his household rejoice in? That they had believed and were baptized? No, 'He rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God' (16:34).

I don't find your connection to be in Scripture when you stated that 'the Bible teaches that remissions of sins, the arrival of the Holy Spirit, etc are promised at baptism'. To the contrary:

• Remission of sins happens this way, according to 1 John 1:9, 'If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness'. Titus 3:5 states, 'He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit'.

• The Holy Spirit arrives when? Eph 1:13-14 states, 'Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory'. We receive the seal of the Holy Spirit when we believe - not when we are baptized.

• What is promised at baptism? Obedience in discipleship (Matt 28:18-20).

Oz

Oz,

Thanks for responding.


I disagree that baptism is part of the "learning process" or that being a disciple is somehow different from becoming a convert. I dont think the early church separated discipleship from salvation as we do today. Can you be a convert and not be a disciple? There is nothing in the life of the early church that suggests there are distinctions between saved people and followers of Jesus. The saved are followers of Jesus/the Way. Also, I would say that if baptism was simply part of the "learning process" than why would it be separated out from "teaching them everything I have commanded"? I think this indicates baptism falls into a different category than just part of the teaching process. I think this scholar has a much better explanation of the great commission, and is worth quoting at length:


You inquired...

First, I would say that I am basing my views on baptism from the teaching of the NT. It is not for me to say when someone is "saved" or not. I would simply argue that the Bible teaches that remissions of sins, the arrival of the Holy Spirit, etc are promised at baptism. I believe I have an obligation to teach what the NT teaches on the subject. If God chooses to save someone who has not been baptized because they didn't know any better, I have no doubt that in his grace that He can and would do such a thing. However, I am simply arguing that this is not what the NT teaches and therefore it is very dangerous for us to teach this as fact. Such a thought is based on the nature of God and not the teaching of the NT as it relates to the how one should respond to the Gospel. In terms of the lives of your and your wife, I would say something like, "You can be assured that you were cleansed and received the Holy Spirit when you, as believers, were baptized at 16."

My personal view is that baptism is only for adult believers. Thus, I would not believe in "baptismal regeneration." I think such notations belong to those who believe in God's saving power at work in baptism but apply it to infants. I think it is this view that has twisted baptism into making it some mystical event that puts the power in the water itself. Rather, baptism only has value when it is combined with faith and repentance. Thus, the water has no power in itself. It is simply the place God has promised to meet the sinner who seeks cleansing, renewal and the Holy Spirit. I believe that while children are scarred by the effects of sin, they are not accountable for their sin until they are older. Thus, there is no need for children to be baptized as they are already "saved." The Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these. It is only once they become aware and accountable for their sin do they need to trust Christ, repent, confess him and be baptized.

Does this make sense?

 

[OzSpen]

None of those listed qualify a bodiless spirit to be a person. A person is body soul and spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot be a person because it is the spirit OF a person. My own personal spirit would not be a new or different person than myself had I the power to send it forth to interact with others.

You continue to impose your idiosyncratic understanding of personhood on Scripture. I provided abundance evidence that demonstrates the Holy Spirit is a person, but you won't acknowledge it.

To the contrary, the Holy Spirit is not a spirit of a person (your view), but the Holy Spirit is a person who has personal attributes and He acts as a person.

Your comparison of 'my own personal spirit' is invalid because we are dealing with a supernatural person.

I am left to conclude that you don't want to receive the Scriptures I have provided to demonstrate the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

We have no further basis for discussion on this topic.

Oz