UnderGround Forums
 

HolyGround >> alternate view to Great Deception...2nd Thess.


2/9/11 7:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18152
inlikeflynn - 
the rooster - you: I understand what you are saying in the larger sense of the Christian experience, but how exactly have you applied the "oneness" doctrine and received confirmation in a way that would be different than trinitarians experience

ttt for the rooster's answer.

me: sorry guys, I have been swamped at work. You asked a good qestion. How does one apply the Oneness doctrine and receive confirmation.

Ultimately the Oneness doctrine is revelatory. It is the revelation of the nature of Christ.

And like Paul, when he (Paul, a Jew) said, "who art thou Lord", the response was, "I AM... Jesus (Yahshua) whom though persecutest...". He is YH our Salvation.

When you have the revelation, the application (of Oneness) is applied by putting on Christ (God's work through the agency of flesh) through the application of the new birth.

You repent to Him (not them) by faith, you are buried with Him (not them) by faith, according to the scriptures, and you receive Him (not them) through faith through the resurrecting power of the infilling of His Spirit.

To understand the nature of Christ is to compel one to believe the gospel (God came in flesh to die for our sins) and to apply and identify with that work (and in doing so proclaim whom He is and testify of His work).

And the result is the same as it was in acts 2, 8,10, 19, etc.

The signs given are the same signs you find in the NT when sinners are saved.

By applying Deut 6:4 you honor God and give Him glory for what He did.



Right, but trinitarians down through the ages have experienced the very same things so how can they be confirmation of two opposing interpretations?


Then they were no longer trinitarians ;-)

If they recognize Jesus as God. If they repent to Him, are bapized in His Name and receive His Spirit, and recognize no other God but the risen Lord, then you are right, they have had a biblical experience and a shared experience.

But believing that quoting John 3:16, or Romans 10, and believing in the trinity, and getting baptized or sprinkled as a sign of faith, and receiving the holy spirit in a confirmation class, or because you got a warm fuzzy isn't quite the experience I was alluding to :-)
2/9/11 8:28 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 3653
 ^ Yes, cause their experiences are not as real nor as valid as yours lol.

btw not mocking your experience or what you are saying, I just find a lot of humor in these kind of debates.
2/10/11 12:20 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18153
Hi Grak, no problem. I'm not offended and I understand.

Act 18:24 ¶ And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, [and] mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

Act 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

Act 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto [them], and EXPOUNDED UNTO HIM THE WAY OF GOD MORE PERFECTLY.

I guess the idea is not to take away from peoples experience where it is valid (repentance, faith, etc) but to add to it.

and we also read:

Act 19:1 ¶ And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

Act 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Act 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

Act 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Act 19:5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the NAME OF THE LORD JESUS.

Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Act 19:7 And all the men were about twelve.

MORE...
2/10/11 12:25 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18154
Can you imagine Apollos or the disciples in ephesus saying, "dude, c'mon. We were baptized by *the man*. I mean, we were baptized by the greatest prophet ever. You're kind of spoiling our experience. And really, don't you think you're a bit dogmatic. Kind of arrogant to show me "a more excellent way". Sort of exclusive to act like you have the truth and we are all somehow wrong. Let me guess, if we don't do it your way, we are all going to hell right?"

;-)
2/10/11 12:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 483
the rooster - 
inlikeflynn - 
the rooster - you: I understand what you are saying in the larger sense of the Christian experience, but how exactly have you applied the "oneness" doctrine and received confirmation in a way that would be different than trinitarians experience

ttt for the rooster's answer.

me: sorry guys, I have been swamped at work. You asked a good qestion. How does one apply the Oneness doctrine and receive confirmation.

Ultimately the Oneness doctrine is revelatory. It is the revelation of the nature of Christ.

And like Paul, when he (Paul, a Jew) said, "who art thou Lord", the response was, "I AM... Jesus (Yahshua) whom though persecutest...". He is YH our Salvation.

When you have the revelation, the application (of Oneness) is applied by putting on Christ (God's work through the agency of flesh) through the application of the new birth.

You repent to Him (not them) by faith, you are buried with Him (not them) by faith, according to the scriptures, and you receive Him (not them) through faith through the resurrecting power of the infilling of His Spirit.

To understand the nature of Christ is to compel one to believe the gospel (God came in flesh to die for our sins) and to apply and identify with that work (and in doing so proclaim whom He is and testify of His work).

And the result is the same as it was in acts 2, 8,10, 19, etc.

The signs given are the same signs you find in the NT when sinners are saved.

By applying Deut 6:4 you honor God and give Him glory for what He did.



Right, but trinitarians down through the ages have experienced the very same things so how can they be confirmation of two opposing interpretations?


Then they were no longer trinitarians ;-)

If they recognize Jesus as God. If they repent to Him, are bapized in His Name and receive His Spirit, and recognize no other God but the risen Lord, then you are right, they have had a biblical experience and a shared experience.

But believing that quoting John 3:16, or Romans 10, and believing in the trinity, and getting baptized or sprinkled as a sign of faith, and receiving the holy spirit in a confirmation class, or because you got a warm fuzzy isn't quite the experience I was alluding to :-)


Holy circular logic, Batman! :)

Come on now, Rooster.
2/10/11 12:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 484
the rooster - Can you imagine Apollos or the disciples in ephesus saying, "dude, c'mon. We were baptized by *the man*. I mean, we were baptized by the greatest prophet ever. You're kind of spoiling our experience. And really, don't you think you're a bit dogmatic. Kind of arrogant to show me "a more excellent way". Sort of exclusive to act like you have the truth and we are all somehow wrong. Let me guess, if we don't do it your way, we are all going to hell right?"

;-)


No, but you're not Paul. You are interpreting his and others' words, which you are separated from linguistically, culturally, and by thousands of years. While I disagree with your interpretations, I don't think they are wholly unreasonable. But, the fact is that throughout Christian history, many people smarter and more dedicated than you have found the trinity in Scripture. Doesn't make them right, but the fact that your interpretation is by far in the minority should cause anyone with a healthy dose of humility to temper their certainty.
2/12/11 5:46 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18155
inlikeflynn:Holy circular logic, Batman! :)

Come on now, Rooster.

me:? You asked what of trinitarians who experienced the "same" thing. If it was the same thing, it was recognizing that of all the pantheons of real and imagined spirits/gods, etc. that there is only One God and He came in flesh. Because of that, we die with Him (repentance), we are buried with HIm (baptism in Jesus Name) and filled with His Spirit.

I don't know trinitarians who believe on a Oneness model who experience baptism in Jesus name? Do you?

you:No, but you're not Paul.

me: no but I reject the notion that you cannot have certainty in your beliefs. The disiciples of ephesus or Apollos also wasn't Paul. Yet they were shown a "more excellent way" and then had that certainty. The Roman Centurion in Acts 10 didn't have truth but after listening to Peter, and accepting Peters command to be baptized in the name of the Lord he had certainty. I don't have to have Paul to have certainty in the word.

you: You are interpreting his and others' words, which you are separated from linguistically, culturally, and by thousands of years.

me: No I'm letting the bible interpret itself. I only allow that the scriptures do not contract/conflict. Trinitarian violates so many scriptures that deal with monotheism.

you: While I disagree with your interpretations, I don't think they are wholly unreasonable.

me: thanks :-)

you: But, the fact is that throughout Christian history, many people smarter and more dedicated than you have found the trinity in Scripture. Doesn't make them right, but the fact that your interpretation is by far in the minority should cause anyone with a healthy dose of humility to temper their certainty.

me: No, because if you study scripture, the majority were wrong. It doesn't mean every minority is right but "straight is the way and wide is the road that leadeth to destruction and there be many".

I would have a cautious eye towards the majority. And the disciples were "unlearned" unlike the pharisees and scribes, so I wouldn't tend to also assume the smart are right about everything.

The gospel is revelatory, the nature of Christ is revelatory and it's often been hidden to the wise and mighty but given to those who would be as children.


2/14/11 12:21 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 485
Rooster: "You asked what of trinitarians who experienced the "same" thing. If it was the same thing, it was recognizing that of all the pantheons of real and imagined spirits/gods, etc. that there is only One God and He came in flesh. Because of that, we die with Him (repentance), we are buried with HIm (baptism in Jesus Name) and filled with His Spirit.

I don't know trinitarians who believe on a Oneness model who experience baptism in Jesus name? Do you?"

Now I'm confused. You said that what you experienced (as reported in Acts) after conversion/baptism confirmed that you are right about the "oneness" model. I pointed out that trinitarians have experienced those same things and you say "but they weren't baptised in Jesus' name"? Well, yes, that's the point. They were baptised in a trinitarian way, i.e. the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and yet they experienced the same things listed in Acts as people baptised in Jesus name only. So again, how can those experiences be proof of the "oneness" model?


Rooster: "no but I reject the notion that you cannot have certainty in your beliefs. The disiciples of ephesus or Apollos also wasn't Paul. Yet they were shown a "more excellent way" and then had that certainty. The Roman Centurion in Acts 10 didn't have truth but after listening to Peter, and accepting Peters command to be baptized in the name of the Lord he had certainty. I don't have to have Paul to have certainty in the word."

But there are different levels of certainty, no? Or are you equally certain about every interpretation you have? The difficulty of the concept (and whatever side you fall on, this is a difficult concept for humans to understand. In fact I sometimes even have trouble distinguishing between the two beyond semantics, but that's another story), and the lack of consensus should affect the level of certainty, at least that's my opinion.

Rooster: "No I'm letting the bible interpret itself. I only allow that the scriptures do not contract/conflict. Trinitarian violates so many scriptures that deal with monotheism."

Does it really, though? Trinatarianism isn't really polytheism in the classical sense. It is still "one" God. Like I said above, when you start talking about different "natures" and "modes", I sometimes have a hard time distinguishing between that and the trinitarian language of "roles" and "personalities".

Rooster: "No, because if you study scripture, the majority were wrong. It doesn't mean every minority is right but "straight is the way and wide is the road that leadeth to destruction and there be many".

I have seen this verse mentioned many times to support the validity of a minority interpretation of Scripture (I was thinking about making a separate thread about this). But, couldn't this be talking about Christianity vs. other religions? Let's say for arguments sake that believers in Catholicism, Orthodox, and Protestant denominations are all saved (I believe they all can be, but aren't all necessarily). Compared to the rest of the world, isn't that relatively few vs. many? Then, when you look at that comparison back through the last 2,000 years, the few vs many holds up even better.

Rooster: "I would have a cautious eye towards the majority. And the disciples were "unlearned" unlike the pharisees and scribes, so I wouldn't tend to also assume the smart are right about everything."

True, but Paul was both educated and it would seem highly intelligent as he wrote a good portion of the NT and tackled some of the toughest concepts while doing so.

Rooster: "The gospel is revelatory, the nature of Christ is revelatory and it's often been hidden to the wise and mighty but given to those who would be as children."

Can't argue with that. I only brought that up as a response to your statement that you had been studying the Bible for 20 years (quite admirable, btw). The point was that there have been others who were just as diligent in their study of Scripture, I'm sure some even more, who have found the Trinity. Heck, my wife showed me pages & pages of notes from her Systematic Theology classes from college with Scriptures supporting the Trinity.
2/14/11 8:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18156
Now I'm confused. You said that what you experienced (as reported in Acts) after conversion/baptism confirmed that you are right about the "oneness" model. I pointed out that trinitarians have experienced those same things and you say "but they weren't baptised in Jesus' name"? Well, yes, that's the point. They were baptised in a trinitarian way, i.e. the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and yet they experienced the same things listed in Acts as people baptised in Jesus name only. So again, how can those experiences be proof of the "oneness" model?

me: but that is the point. Part of experiencing the Book of Acts conversion starts with recognizing who Jesus is. Not recognizing His complete authority and power and relegating Him as a portion of the godhead, is not experiencing the sam thing.

Being baptized in the titles rather then invoking His personal name is not the same thing. The power is "the name and faith in the name". When Peter and John healed the lame man they didn't call on the trinity or titles. They called on the name. The sanehedrin forbade them to teach or preach this name anymore.

But first they asked them how they did it and they said that it was "the name and faith in the name." At the name, demons tremble. At the name, the sick are healed.

Don't you bless your food calling on His name.

So, clearly it's a different spiritual, supernatural experience. I liken it to a check written out with the personal name of the grantor vs just his titles.

So, not only is it not the same thing, but it's not the Book of Acts baptism. Read it for yourself. Seriously bro.

you: But there are different levels of certainty, no? Or are you equally certain about every interpretation you have?

me: I have certainty about the revelation of God in Christ. There are other things I don't have certainty on (eschatology), aspects of creationism, aspects of choice vs pre chosen, etc. But yeah, i'm certain about the new birth and the godhead. At least as certain as I am that I believe the bible is the Word of God for instance.

you: The difficulty of the concept (and whatever side you fall on, this is a difficult concept for humans to understand. In fact I sometimes even have trouble distinguishing between the two beyond semantics, but that's another story), and the lack of consensus should affect the level of certainty, at least that's my opinion.

me: i understand...
"

you: Does it really, though? Trinatarianism isn't really polytheism in the classical sense.

me: I think it is in the classical sense. If words mean anything. I believe that any of the classical theological definitions, any of the six, when you define the words they are at the least polytheistic, and the most, contradictory and confusing.

you: It is still "one" God. Like I said above, when you start talking about different "natures" and "modes", I sometimes have a hard time distinguishing between that and the trinitarian language of "roles" and "personalities".

me: fair enough and I will say there are many trinitarians who are practical oneness. I've met and talked to many.


you: I have seen this verse mentioned many times to support the validity of a minority interpretation of Scripture (I was thinking about making a separate thread about this). But, couldn't this be talking about Christianity vs. other religions? Let's say for arguments sake that believers in Catholicism, Orthodox, and Protestant denominations are all saved (I believe they all can be, but aren't all necessarily). Compared to the rest of the world, isn't that relatively few vs. many? Then, when you look at that comparison back through the last 2,000 years, the few vs many holds up even better.

me: sure and certainly every radical minority view doesn't stand on it's own because it's a minority view. Every fairly acceptable view isn't wrong just because it's a majority. My point was that I would be cautious with assuming "smarts" and majority equate to right. Noah and his family (8 in all) were saved. The rest of the world (obviously a smaller population) was lost.

It could mean orthodox Christianity vs the world but I think the biblical model is smaller. The Jews vs the world and amongst the Jews, only a remnant.

Once Christianity was established, it was s subset of Judaism and now a very small minority. First 12, then a few thousand.

you: True, but Paul was both educated and it would seem highly intelligent as he wrote a good portion of the NT and tackled some of the toughest concepts while doing so.

me: yes, but again, he was a minority compared to all the other theologians of his day.

you: Can't argue with that. I only brought that up as a response to your statement that you had been studying the Bible for 20 years (quite admirable, btw). The point was that there have been others who were just as diligent in their study of Scripture, I'm sure some even more, who have found the Trinity. Heck, my wife showed me pages & pages of notes from her Systematic Theology classes from college with Scriptures supporting the Trinity.

me: I know, I went to a trinitarian college :-) still never made sense to me :-)

I appreciate though you batting this around with me. You are a good guy!

Sorry for being so dogmatic. Just what I passionately believe and experienced :-)
2/14/11 8:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18157
Now I'm confused. You said that what you experienced (as reported in Acts) after conversion/baptism confirmed that you are right about the "oneness" model. I pointed out that trinitarians have experienced those same things and you say "but they weren't baptised in Jesus' name"? Well, yes, that's the point. They were baptised in a trinitarian way, i.e. the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and yet they experienced the same things listed in Acts as people baptised in Jesus name only. So again, how can those experiences be proof of the "oneness" model?

me: but that is the point. Part of experiencing the Book of Acts conversion starts with recognizing who Jesus is. Not recognizing His complete authority and power and relegating Him as a portion of the godhead, is not experiencing the sam thing.

Being baptized in the titles rather then invoking His personal name is not the same thing. The power is "the name and faith in the name". When Peter and John healed the lame man they didn't call on the trinity or titles. They called on the name. The sanehedrin forbade them to teach or preach this name anymore.

But first they asked them how they did it and they said that it was "the name and faith in the name." At the name, demons tremble. At the name, the sick are healed.

Don't you bless your food calling on His name.

So, clearly it's a different spiritual, supernatural experience. I liken it to a check written out with the personal name of the grantor vs just his titles.

So, not only is it not the same thing, but it's not the Book of Acts baptism. Read it for yourself. Seriously bro.

you: But there are different levels of certainty, no? Or are you equally certain about every interpretation you have?

me: I have certainty about the revelation of God in Christ. There are other things I don't have certainty on (eschatology), aspects of creationism, aspects of choice vs pre chosen, etc. But yeah, i'm certain about the new birth and the godhead. At least as certain as I am that I believe the bible is the Word of God for instance.

you: The difficulty of the concept (and whatever side you fall on, this is a difficult concept for humans to understand. In fact I sometimes even have trouble distinguishing between the two beyond semantics, but that's another story), and the lack of consensus should affect the level of certainty, at least that's my opinion.

me: i understand...
"

you: Does it really, though? Trinatarianism isn't really polytheism in the classical sense.

me: I think it is in the classical sense. If words mean anything. I believe that any of the classical theological definitions, any of the six, when you define the words they are at the least polytheistic, and the most, contradictory and confusing.

you: It is still "one" God. Like I said above, when you start talking about different "natures" and "modes", I sometimes have a hard time distinguishing between that and the trinitarian language of "roles" and "personalities".

me: fair enough and I will say there are many trinitarians who are practical oneness. I've met and talked to many.


you: I have seen this verse mentioned many times to support the validity of a minority interpretation of Scripture (I was thinking about making a separate thread about this). But, couldn't this be talking about Christianity vs. other religions? Let's say for arguments sake that believers in Catholicism, Orthodox, and Protestant denominations are all saved (I believe they all can be, but aren't all necessarily). Compared to the rest of the world, isn't that relatively few vs. many? Then, when you look at that comparison back through the last 2,000 years, the few vs many holds up even better.

me: sure and certainly every radical minority view doesn't stand on it's own because it's a minority view. Every fairly acceptable view isn't wrong just because it's a majority. My point was that I would be cautious with assuming "smarts" and majority equate to right. Noah and his family (8 in all) were saved. The rest of the world (obviously a smaller population) was lost.

It could mean orthodox Christianity vs the world but I think the biblical model is smaller. The Jews vs the world and amongst the Jews, only a remnant.

Once Christianity was established, it was s subset of Judaism and now a very small minority. First 12, then a few thousand.

you: True, but Paul was both educated and it would seem highly intelligent as he wrote a good portion of the NT and tackled some of the toughest concepts while doing so.

me: yes, but again, he was a minority compared to all the other theologians of his day.

you: Can't argue with that. I only brought that up as a response to your statement that you had been studying the Bible for 20 years (quite admirable, btw). The point was that there have been others who were just as diligent in their study of Scripture, I'm sure some even more, who have found the Trinity. Heck, my wife showed me pages & pages of notes from her Systematic Theology classes from college with Scriptures supporting the Trinity.

me: I know, I went to a trinitarian college :-) still never made sense to me :-)

I appreciate though you batting this around with me. You are a good guy!

Sorry for being so dogmatic. Just what I passionately believe and experienced :-)
2/15/11 9:46 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 3683
 Gotta be honest, maybe I have adult onset ADD or something but I can't follow your point in the line by line parsing of posts and comments. Maybe I need some B12 or more sleep or something.
2/16/11 1:39 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18158
Grakman -  Gotta be honest, maybe I have adult onset ADD or something but I can't follow your point in the line by line parsing of posts and comments. Maybe I need some B12 or more sleep or something.



sorry, I don't mind the "quote" function but when there is a long response with directed points and questions I feel obligated to try to respond to each point.
2/16/11 12:06 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 492
the rooster - me: but that is the point. Part of experiencing the Book of Acts conversion starts with recognizing who Jesus is. Not recognizing His complete authority and power and relegating Him as a portion of the godhead, is not experiencing the sam thing.

Being baptized in the titles rather then invoking His personal name is not the same thing. The power is "the name and faith in the name". When Peter and John healed the lame man they didn't call on the trinity or titles. They called on the name. The sanehedrin forbade them to teach or preach this name anymore.

But first they asked them how they did it and they said that it was "the name and faith in the name." At the name, demons tremble. At the name, the sick are healed.

Don't you bless your food calling on His name.

So, clearly it's a different spiritual, supernatural experience. I liken it to a check written out with the personal name of the grantor vs just his titles.

So, not only is it not the same thing, but it's not the Book of Acts baptism. Read it for yourself. Seriously bro.



I don't want to belabor this but you are still missing the point. Let's try this. How do you know that the Acts baptism that you participated in wasn't just a bunch of meaningless words & symbolic actions? It was because of what you experienced AFTER, correct? Filling of the Spirit, speaking in tongues, etc., right? Isn't that what you meant by "it was confirmed by my experience"? Now, my point was that people have been baptised in the name of the trinity, and STILL experienced those same things AFTER the baptism, i.e. the "fruits" of baptism/conversion if you will. Now, let's say someone was baptized in the name of Zeus. Would you still expect that they receive these gifts?
What does that say then about being baptised in the name of the trinity?


rooster: I have certainty about the revelation of God in Christ. There are other things I don't have certainty on (eschatology), aspects of creationism, aspects of choice vs pre chosen, etc. But yeah, i'm certain about the new birth and the godhead. At least as certain as I am that I believe the bible is the Word of God for instance.



Fair enough.



rooster: I know, I went to a trinitarian college :-) still never made sense to me :-)



I agree with that. It doesn't make sense. But, neither does the incarnation. Fully God and fully man? Does not compute. But, we all agree on that.


I appreciate though you batting this around with me. You are a good guy!

Sorry for being so dogmatic. Just what I passionately believe and experienced :-)


No problem. I enjoy these discussions and appreciate your devotion. My main concern with these kinds of topics is unity within the overall body. It's OK to disagree, but wherever possible, we shouldn't let those disagreements overshadow the essential areas where we agree (God's existence, divinity of Christ, etc).
2/16/11 5:25 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 3696
the rooster - 
Grakman -  Gotta be honest, maybe I have adult onset ADD or something but I can't follow your point in the line by line parsing of posts and comments. Maybe I need some B12 or more sleep or something.



sorry, I don't mind the "quote" function but when there is a long response with directed points and questions I feel obligated to try to respond to each point.
No worries rooster, I'm the one with the problem here not you guys.
 
2/18/11 12:25 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18159
inlikeflynn:
I don't want to belabor this but you are still missing the point. Let's try this. How do you know that the Acts baptism that you participated in wasn't just a bunch of meaningless words & symbolic actions? It was because of what you experienced AFTER, correct? Filling of the Spirit, speaking in tongues, etc., right? Isn't that what you meant by "it was confirmed by my experience"? Now, my point was that people have been baptised in the name of the trinity, and STILL experienced those same things AFTER the baptism, i.e. the "fruits" of baptism/conversion if you will. Now, let's say someone was baptized in the name of Zeus. Would you still expect that they receive these gifts?
What does that say then about being baptised in the name of the trinity?

me: hey, how do you get separation in your quote box? I thought it only would put quotes on the whole thing?

Clearly God responds to the faith of the recipient and as I said earlier, there are a lot of folks in trinitarian churches that are practical oneness. They aren't reading Plato or Homer and calling on Zeus, they are reading the bible, have faith in a biblical experience and they receive the infilling by faith.

But I believe that the revelation of Jesus Christ, and baptism in His name for the remission of sins, is also a supernatural experience. Yes, it can be in conjunction with, before or after receiving the Spirit, however it is in itself a distinct supernatural experience. You feel the weight of sin gone, and you feel the presence of Christ in a very distinct way.

you:I agree with that. It doesn't make sense. But, neither does the incarnation. Fully God and fully man? Does not compute. But, we all agree on that.

me: yes, but it's a definable biblical doctrine. the bible says Jesus is God and Jesus is man. Clearly. I'm ok using the same words as the bible and believing them. I'm very uncomfortable describing Jesus with words not found in the bible that bring "word pictures" in my minds eye that are polytheistic (God the son, Eternal Son, 2nd person, persons, tri unity, trinity, 3 in 1, etc.).

you:No problem. I enjoy these discussions and appreciate your devotion. My main concern with these kinds of topics is unity within the overall body. It's OK to disagree, but wherever possible, we shouldn't let those disagreements overshadow the essential areas where we agree (God's existence, divinity of Christ, etc).

me: I absolutely love where we agree. I will support you and others around other essentials.



Grakman:No worries rooster, I'm the one with the problem here not you guys.


me: dude I appreciate you. I agree with a lot of what you say, disagree with some but find guys like you and flynn and others to be very civil, respectful, engaging, and you are a blessing to me.
2/18/11 12:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 494
the rooster - me: hey, how do you get separation in your quote box? I thought it only would put quotes on the whole thing?


You have to manually type the start and end quote commands around each block of text that you want boxed.


Clearly God responds to the faith of the recipient and as I said earlier, there are a lot of folks in trinitarian churches that are practical oneness. They aren't reading Plato or Homer and calling on Zeus, they are reading the bible, have faith in a biblical experience and they receive the infilling by faith.


OK, so I think we are in agreement here. God can work around our doctrinal errors, within reason of course.


But I believe that the revelation of Jesus Christ, and baptism in His name for the remission of sins, is also a supernatural experience. Yes, it can be in conjunction with, before or after receiving the Spirit, however it is in itself a distinct supernatural experience. You feel the weight of sin gone, and you feel the presence of Christ in a very distinct way.


Does your tradition believe that baptism is required for salvation?


rooster: yes, but it's a definable biblical doctrine. the bible says Jesus is God and Jesus is man. Clearly. I'm ok using the same words as the bible and believing them. I'm very uncomfortable describing Jesus with words not found in the bible that bring "word pictures" in my minds eye that are polytheistic (God the son, Eternal Son, 2nd person, persons, tri unity, trinity, 3 in 1, etc.).


Fair enough. Like I said before, I am sympathetic to the conceptual difficulties you have with the trinitarian doctrine.


rooster: I absolutely love where we agree. I will support you and others around other essentials.


Cool. Take care until next time.
2/18/11 12:47 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Grakman
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 6/21/08
Posts: 3705
the rooster -Grakman:No worries rooster, I'm the one with the problem here not you guys.


me: dude I appreciate you. I agree with a lot of what you say, disagree with some but find guys like you and flynn and others to be very civil, respectful, engaging, and you are a blessing to me.
Thanks rooster, same here my friend.
 
2/20/11 11:35 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
truthisalive
13 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/14/02
Posts: 3714
Some straight up eternal Knowledge being discussed here. I have been blessed by this conversation for sure.
2/22/11 12:47 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18160
inlikeflynn, you asked if my tradition viewed baptism as necessary for salvation.

Yes.

Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ *for* (for what?) the remission of sins...

So we believe that Grace is applied when we are buried with Christ in baptism. While God applies grace to our lives as sinners (and doesn't destroy us) and at repentance, there is something supernatural about baptism and the calling on of the name of the Lord by faith.

I understand why people would feel that this is scary, or condemning to those who haven't been baptized. I'm only believing what I read. If the Lord would allow others who have not identified with his burial in, I'm cool with that and will rejoice. But being buried with Him is not like having to perform jihad, or walk on glass, or fast to death. Clearly it's different then a bath or swimming or people wouldn't feel so objectionable or so passionate about it one way or the other. The spiritual component is the obedience, the faith, the acceptance of what God says will happen and then the vulnerability and yes the humility of having everyone look at you while you confess you are a sinner and need Jesus.

But it's well worth it bro. Life changing. Load of sin lifted or better yet, buried forever in the Red Sea!
2/22/11 12:59 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
truthisalive
13 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 3/14/02
Posts: 3722
Go to sleep Rooster. You have to be up early to crow!
2/22/11 11:23 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 495

inlikeflynn, you asked if my tradition viewed baptism as necessary for salvation.

Yes.

Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ *for* (for what?) the remission of sins...

So we believe that Grace is applied when we are buried with Christ in baptism. While God applies grace to our lives as sinners (and doesn't destroy us) and at repentance, there is something supernatural about baptism and the calling on of the name of the Lord by faith.

I understand why people would feel that this is scary, or condemning to those who haven't been baptized. I'm only believing what I read. If the Lord would allow others who have not identified with his burial in, I'm cool with that and will rejoice. But being buried with Him is not like having to perform jihad, or walk on glass, or fast to death. Clearly it's different then a bath or swimming or people wouldn't feel so objectionable or so passionate about it one way or the other. The spiritual component is the obedience, the faith, the acceptance of what God says will happen and then the vulnerability and yes the humility of having everyone look at you while you confess you are a sinner and need Jesus.

But it's well worth it bro. Life changing. Load of sin lifted or better yet, buried forever in the Red Sea!


Ok, that explains why you are so passionate about the way it is carried out, i.e. in the name of Jesus. Thanks.

For the record, I have been baptised. I don't remember if it was in the name of the trinity or just Jesus, though so...

Funny story with that. The lady that went before me apparently didn't think about what would happen to a white robe after it got wet and didn't wear anything under it. As she was climbing out...let's just say that nothing was left to the imagination. I was kind of shocked, then I looked at the pastor, who looked at me and there was this "did you see what I just saw" moment, then we looked away quickly never to speak of it. The look on his face (and I'm sure mine) still cracks me up 15+ years later.
2/23/11 12:50 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
the rooster
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 18161
sheesh, the other sex plagues us even at the baptismal font!?! vexing!
2/23/11 2:31 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
inlikeflynn
2 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/11/06
Posts: 497
the rooster - sheesh, the other sex plagues us even at the baptismal font!?! vexing!


Yep, there is no escape except death's sweet embrace. :)

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.