Setting NewDay straight. You must teach the Trinity to make disciples
ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
Setting NewDay straight. You must teach the Trinity to make disciples -
June 13th, 2012, 09:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewDay
Interesting. This is just another reason, we should NEVER judge a brother as saved or not, by the 'trinity' doctrine.
A doctrine cannot save, JESUS can and does. They make the trinity an idol.
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...." Matthew 28:19
The word "baptizing" is a participle which modifies the act of making disciples. The baptizing is "into" the Tri-une Name. Therefore, one cannot make disciples without teaching the Tri-une Name.
Thus NewDay does not make disciples.
blessings,
Wile
Last edited by Wile E. Coyote; June 13th, 2012 at 11:43 AM.
Reason: correct spelling
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...." Matthew 28:19
The word "baptizing" ia a participle which modifies the act of making disciples. The baptizing is "into" the Tri-une Name. Therefore, one cannot make disciples without teaching the Tri-une Name.
Slogan/motto:
1 Jo 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
1Jo 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
Reputation:
June 13th, 2012, 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wile E. Coyote
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...." Matthew 28:19
The word "baptizing" is a participle which modifies the act of making disciples. The baptizing is "into" the Tri-une Name. Therefore, one cannot make disciples without teaching the Tri-une Name.
Thus NewDay does not make disciples.
blessings,
Wile
ummm...I believe in using the three names.
The three names are a witness of the One true God. You know, where He said, it takes two or three witnesses for truth to be established? Does that mean we only have two or three witnesses that witness the 'One' God? Nope..He has many titles and names, but He did have us use the three to be a witness of Himself.
If you want to limit God to three names, that is your doctrine.
I won't be back to this thread and argue with you brother. Perhaps there will be others that will.
Where do you see the plural "names" in the text? It says, "...make disciples, baptizing them into the name (singular) of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
You cannot make disciples without teaching the Trinity.
Quote:
I won't be back to this thread and argue with you brother. Perhaps there will be others that will.
While the trinitarian formula has been 'inserted' in all 'extant' manuscripts,....this does not mean or prove that such existed in the earliest now no longer extant manuscripts, and enough evidence exists to assume that Matthew 28:19 is a 'late addition' bearing a questionable authenticity to this being a saying of Jesus. It can be challenged from many angles -
Research of facts and conclusions gathered thereby:
Even granted Omega's assumption in his thread-title statement,...one could not prove that a 'trinity' exists or does not exist, since such a 'formula' is a mental construct or 'conception' of 'God' anyways. Such matters of 'definition' would be 'assumed'. 'God' has been invested with so many personalities, among many other concepts that 'God' is pretty much whatever one makes 'Him', 'Her' or 'It' to be. 'God' is subject to 'definition' by the human mind and religious imagination. 'God' may or may not exist by any qualification or formulation. This could shatter many golden calves
pj
Jesus did NOT command His disciples to baptize with water. So there is no case against the authenticity of Matthew 28:19. Jesus commanded them to baptize in the classical sense. Baptism in the classical sense has nothing at all to do with water. Note the definition of classical baptism given by Presbyterian SCHOLAR James W. Dale:
Quote:
Whatever is capable of thoroughly changing the character, state or condition of any object, is capable of baptizing that object; and by such change of character, state, or condition does, in fact baptize it.
Classic Baptism, James W. Dale, p. 353-354
Anytime a man underwent a change in his character, state or condition he was BAPTIZED by means of that which produced that change.
1. The disciples were "baptized" BY MEANS OF THE WORD that Jesus spoke to them.
Quote:
Now you are already clean (baptized) through the word which I have spoken to you.
John 15:3
The disciples were NOT baptized with water Mike! They are "ALREADY CLEAN" through the word that Jesus spoke to them. The word that Jesus spoke to them wrought the change in their character, state or condition.
2.Paul said that the Israelites were "baptized" BY MEANS OF THE CLOUD that went before them and by means of their passage through the Red Sea ON DRY LAND ( 1 Corinthians 10:1-2; Ex. 13:21; 14:21).
In none of these example was water applied. The disciples were baptized by means of the word which Jesus spoke and the Israelites were baptized by means of the cloud that went before them and by means of their passage through the Red sea ON DRY LAND.
3. Isaiah was baptized by BY FEAR.
Quote:
4Wandered hath my heart, trembling hath terrified me, The twilight of my desire He hath made a fear to me,
Young's Literal Translation
The word "terrified" is "baptizo" in the Septuagint: η καρδια μου πλαναται και η ανομια με βαπτιζει η ψυχη μου εφεστηκεν εις φοβον
5. One may have been "baptized by" BY A DRUG INDUCED HIGH.
Quote:
Drug-Induced High
3. Then, mersing powerfully (baptizing potently -> making high), he set me free.
[(Conant's translation) "Then WHELMING (BAPTIZING) potently, he set me free. ex. 150, p 72. Aristophon (Athenaeus, Philosopher's Banquet, IX. 44.)]
P 319-20; (In this example a slave-girl was given a drug, which she imbibed and was powerfully drugged, she was baptized potently.) Dr. Conant, in making baptizo express an "effect" becomes exposed to the charge of treason to the (Baptist) cause, as brought by Dr. Carson. "Potently" is not a proper qualifying term for dipping; nor for whelming, or mersing, or baptizing in primary use. The agency may be potent, but not the condition. (But) it is entirely proper as characterizing the secondary use, expressive of controlling influence. A specific translation here is more than justified (of being powerfully drugged).
6. One may have been "baptized" BY INTOXICATION FROM WINE.
Quote:
Intoxicated
4. Having mersed (baptized -> intoxicated) Alexander by much wine.
[(Conant's translation) "And Thebe, learning the purpose [of Alexander], gave daggers to the brothers and urged them to be ready for the slaughter; and having WHELMED (BAPTIZED) Alexander with much wine and put him to sleep, she sends out the guards of the bed-chamber, under the pretense of taking a bath, and called the brothers to the deed. ex. 149, p 71. Conon, Narration L.]
P 320; "Having immersed Alexander in wine - that is, having made him drunk with wine" (Carson). This translation (of Carson) shows the intenseness of (Baptist) theory while exposing its error. 1. "Immersed."...is professedly used as synonymous with dip. This profession is never carried out in practice, nor can it ever be. Here, as in unnumbered other places dip is slipped out and immerse is slipped in because the former would not answer the purpose. To "dip anyone in wine" for the purpose of representing a state of drunkenness is figure which no thoughtful person ever employed. (1.) Because of inconsistency. Dipping causes but a trivial effect while drunkenness is one of power. (2.) Because of want of adaptation. Nothing is made drunk by being put into wine. But "immerse" is as unsuitable for other reasons as dip. No one insists more strongly than Carson that the whole person, in baptism, must go within the element, consequently, Alexander must go, head and ears, within the wine; and when there he must stay there long enough to imbibe the intoxicating qualities of the element. How long this will take I cannot say, but quite probably before he gets drunk he will have got drowned. Such a case shows the Baptist error of confounding a dipping with a baptism. The qualities of wine cannot be extracted by a dipping, though they may by a baptism. It shows also the essential error of a figure which represents drunkenness by immersing a living being in wine, a condition which has no tendency to make drunk, but which must drown. 2. "Much wine." Much is, significantly, omitted in (Carson's) translation. It has no fitness in announcing a physical mersion. What matters it whether Alexander were physically mersed in "much wine" or not?...Dr. Carson felt this, and throws it out. But this word is eminently significant if the writer means to express a state if intoxication. "Much wine" gives emphasis to the influence exerted. 3. "In wine." The introduction of "in" localizing the tyrant of Pherae (Alexander) within the wine is an error resulting from the previous error in the form of the act attributed to the verb. If dip (or its claimed equivalent, immerse) be associated with a fluid, that fluid necessarily becomes the element and if no appropriate preposition is furnished one must be supplied. This Dr. Carson has found necessary to do. Error begets error. This construction with its translation is important to notice...
We thus see what vital issues depend on the right determination of the value of baptizo. Has it "but one meaning through all Greek literature - mode and nothing but mode - to dip? (so Dr. Carson). Or is it devoid of all modal action - demanding a condition of intusposition? And does it, with parallelism to bapto, lay aside this primary demand for intusposition, and substitute for it a demand, only, for controlling influence, which attends some phases of intusposition, as dyeing in some cases of dipping?...Carson dips, plunges, immerses Alexander in wine, instead of allowing him to be "influenced (made drunk) by wine."...(Now we come to the) Interpretation (by Carson). - After he...paid tribute to (his Baptist) theory and system by introducing modal act and figure into his translation Carson adds - "that is having made him drunk with wine." With this admission of the meaning, and with the admission of Conant (in his translation, "whelmed with wine"), that there was no dipping, even in figure, we may be satisfied that we do not greatly err in the position that influence is directly expressed, and as that influence can take but one form the translation is faithful which says, "having made Alexander drunk by much wine."...
I HAVE GIVEN SEVERAL BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL EXAMPLES THAT BAPTISM OCCURRED WITHOUT WATER. NOW PROVE THAT JESUS WAS SPEAKING ABOUT WATER BAPTISM IN MATTHEW 28:19.
YOUR ARGUMENT AGAINST THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE TRI-UNE NAME IN MATTHEW 28:19 IS LAME AND UNSCHOLARLY. NOT ALL AGREE THAT JESUS WAS SPEAKING ABOUT WATER BAPTISM.
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE TRI-UNE NAME IN THE HOLY WORD OF GOD STANDS!
Slogan/motto:
II Timothy 2:15, Psalms 6:5, I John 3:1-2, Romans 5:1 I John 4:18, I Timothy 2:4-5, II Corinthians 9:8,11, III John 2
Reputation:
June 20th, 2012, 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wile E. Coyote
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...." Matthew 28:19
The word "baptizing" is a participle which modifies the act of making disciples. The baptizing is "into" the Tri-une Name. Therefore, one cannot make disciples without teaching the Tri-une Name.
Thus NewDay does not make disciples.
blessings,
Wile
It is noteworthy that there is no scriptural record of the apostles or any of the disciples carrying out that baptizing by the trinitarian formula.
The reference to baptizing was in the name of Jesus Christ.
Acts 2:38
Had Peter forgotten what Jesus Christ taught them just a few days earlier?
NO, Peter did not forget because Jesus Christ never spoke the trinitarian formula.
Matthew 28:19 contains a forgery, no doubt, inserted by some fanatical trinitarian scribe, or some one with a knife held to his throat.
There is no trinity. Jesus Christ never taught one because it is error.
oatmeal
"And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers." Acts 2:42
"For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?" Psalm 6:5
Slogan/motto:
"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."-1 Cor. 10:31 KJV
Reputation:
June 20th, 2012, 03:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oatmeal
It is noteworthy that there is no scriptural record of the apostles or any of the disciples carrying out that baptizing by the trinitarian formula.
The reference to baptizing was in the name of Jesus Christ.
Acts 2:38
Had Peter forgotten what Jesus Christ taught them just a few days earlier?
NO, Peter did not forget because Jesus Christ never spoke the trinitarian formula.
Matthew 28:19 contains a forgery, no doubt, inserted by some fanatical trinitarian scribe, or some one with a knife held to his throat.
There is no trinity. Jesus Christ never taught one because it is error.
oatmeal
"It is noteworthy that there is no scriptural record of the apostles or any of the disciples carrying out that baptizing by the trinitarian formula.The reference to baptizing was in the name of Jesus Christ."-oatmeal
You missed it. The reason for the "triune" name-the audience. The heathen, the "nations," who had no knowledge of the LORD God at all, the LORD God of the OT, the "true" God , in contrast to their "gods."
"The reference to baptizing was in the name of Jesus Christ.Acts 2:38"-oatmeal
The audience? Jews, proselytes....who already had a knowledge, belief, in the LORD God, as revealed in the OT. The emphasis was on believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Hence-baptizing was in the name of Jesus Christ.
Slogan/motto:
Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Reputation:
June 20th, 2012, 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wile E. Coyote
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...." Matthew 28:19
The word "baptizing" is a participle which modifies the act of making disciples. The baptizing is "into" the Tri-une Name. Therefore, one cannot make disciples without teaching the Tri-une Name.
Thus NewDay does not make disciples.
blessings,
Wile
Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Act 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Act 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Slogan/motto:
"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."-1 Cor. 10:31 KJV
Reputation:
June 20th, 2012, 04:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazy afternoon
Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Act 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
Act 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
LA
Genesis-Revelation. So there. I just "went over the top" again. Nothing to this arguing.
Slogan/motto:
"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."-1 Cor. 10:31 KJV
Reputation:
June 20th, 2012, 04:38 PM
"I won't be back to this thread and argue with you brother."-NewScam
Which she says to every poster on TOL, and comes back and "argues." Next up: you will be on her "ignore," and she will "un ignore" you soon thereafter.
Slogan/motto:
Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Reputation:
June 20th, 2012, 09:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by john w
Genesis-Revelation. So there. I just "went over the top" again. Nothing to this arguing.
Linear Mode
