Then you should probably refrain commenting about them at all, rather than referring to them as 'Christians,' albeit as "not mainstream Christians." You come off as a fellow-traveler with a cult, which you are.
I sense you seek opportunities to provoke arguments rather than create harmony. I question if your intent is to help bring the body of Christ together, or force it farther apart?
You are making an unsupported leap. You are only making an assertion. The Apostle directly states that they lied to the Holy Spirit, and then reiterates that they have not "lied to man, but to God." You contradict me, but you don't bother to explain why.
There is a concept called agency in which one entity can act on behalf of another. To establish divinity, you need to rule out agency as an explanation.
You cannot lie to a mere "force," since the force has no identity. This would be like saying, "You have lied to the telephone. You have lied to me," if perhaps you were having an argument with someone over the phone. Nor can you call an angel "God."
Agency applied to scripture would permit an angel, or other spirit being to act on behalf of God and if you lie to the spirit you lie to God.
I previously wrote: “The triadic linkage is interesting but it does not establish the Holy Spirit as divine.”
You replied:
A ridiculous conclusion.
Are you trying to stir up strife, or create harmony?
If your argument is that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force and is therefore nothing, an inanimate object, how do you dismiss this verse which clearly presents the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as distinct individuals? You give assertions, but you do not give really valid reasons why we should believe you.
Do you pay no attention to what I write, or do you just act on whatever your impulse is, or are you just seeking opportunity to stir up strife?
In post #120 and #121, I responded to: Since you hold that the Father and Son are divine, but the Holy Spirit as a "force," I think this means you are an Armstrongite.
This was my response in #120 and #121:
I'm not sure where you got that from my post. I wrote:I can understand how they would come to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is a distinct divinity, coequal and coeternal with God and Christ but I can also understand from scripture how a person might decide the Holy Spirit is more likely to be a force, or God's presence.
Concerning Mat 28:19, I previously wrote: “That is a powerful verse that places the Father, Son and Holy Spirit on the same level. However, scholars debate whether those are the exact words of Christ, or a paraphrase that was part of the original text reflecting baptismal practice of the church circa 80AD?”
Who are these scholars you refer to? What are their names?
I NEED TO MAKE AN IMPORTANT CORRECTION: I originally wrote that there is no record of the Apostolic Fathers using the threefold name. That was an editorial mistake on my part. At a certain point in these long HTML exchanges, it can become very difficult to edit accurately. I originally intended to discuss the baptismal rite theory but decided not to at which point I edited the text with the intent of it reading “Secondly, If Christ commanded baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, why isn’t there a record of any apostles, or New Testament writer baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?” I’m very sorry about that and can understand how it would raise a lot of red flags.
Back to your comment:
Just talking about what some unnamed people say doesn't help you with anything. None of the Greek manuscripts have variation on that verse, and the exact wording is supported by quotes from ancient church writings dating back as far as the first century.
The Apostolic Fathers did use the threefold formula but as far as I recall do not make mention of a baptismal rite such as suggested in your Finnegan article with the Ferguson quote. Didn’t I write that the Great Commission is part of the original text of Matthew?
For example, the Didache:,Justin Martyr:,Irenaeus:,Tertullian:,Hippolytus:,Cyprian:
Thank you. Finnegan cited them I believe primarily to dispel accusations that the Great Commission was an insertion circa 4th century. I’ve never suggested that and from the outset indicated a belief that the words are contained in the original Gospel manuscript. Your reference to the Apostolic Fathers is probably due to my above editorial mistake.
I wrote: “Two reasons being: First, Matt 28:19 has no other scriptural parallel.”
You responded:
Is this the reasoning of your scholars? If it is, then your two reasons aren't evidence at all, but mere speculation.
Hold on there. The scholars you cite a little farther down use speculative language and admit to a “seeming contradiction”.
If you have no textual or historical evidence, then all this is is the rantings of liberals or cultists who are enemies of Christ anyway.
The article link you provided by Finnegan quotes Ferguson using speculative language . Ferguson’s quote doesn’t contain citations but probably comes directly, or indirectly from J. Crehan, "Early Christian Baptism and the Creed, (1950) p.25, p.76., p.79-p.84. I no longer have Crehan to quote verbatim but a copy can be obtained via public libraries.
I’m not the one who cited Finnegan. It was you. Finnegan admits to speculating as to an explanation in his concluding sentence:
However we work o ut the seeming contradiction, our difficulty here does not warrant changing what Scripture says to read more smoothly.The reason speculative language is used by Finnegan and Ferguson is likely due to there being no examples in scripture or early Apostolic Fathers of such a baptismal rite.
The scholars I would cite are:
Cullmann, "Earliest Christian Confessions", (1949)
F. C. Conybeare, ZNTW, II (1901)
F. H. Chase, “The Lord’s Command to Baptize (St. Matthew XXVIII 19)”, JTS, VI, (1904-1905).
Lebreton, "History of the Dogma of the Trinity from its origins to the Council of Nicaea", (1939)
J. Crehan, "Early Christian Baptism and the Creed, (1950)
W. E. Flemington, New Testament Doctrine of Baptism, (1957)
H. G. Marsh, "Origin and Significance of Baptism", (1941)
A. W. Wainwright, “The Trinity in the New Testament”, (1962),
. I'll also add that you just got done poo pooing Mar 1:10-11
How do I poo poo Mar 1:10-11 when in #139 we had the following exchange:
Your wrote:I don’t see where I poo pooed anything you wrote."And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Mar 1:10-11 )
Here the Father speaks in heaven, while the Holy Spirit hovers above the Son.
I responded with:
This is further support for the Holy Spirit as a distinct being rather than impersonal force/presence. It does not establish divinity of the Holy Spirit.
You wrote:
and 2 Co 13:14, which certainly parallel it. Even you called the latter a "trinitarian linkage." Your only problem with it is that you did not like it, for no apparent reason.
2 Co 13:14 does not establish divinity of the Holy Spirit because it does not rule out agency… power of attorney.
I wrote:
”Instead, in the Acts of the Apostles baptism is in Christ’s name. Paul speaks of being baptized into Christ, or Christ Jesus but never the threefold name.”
You responded with:
This "second" reason is also quite weak:
If it was so weak, why can’t you offer a stronger rebuttal than Finnegan and Ferguson? Finnegan admits to an apparent scriptural contradiction and Ferguson uses speculative language of “may” throughout his explanation. From Ferguson:
"The phrases in Acts may not, however, reflect alternative formulas in the administration of baptism or alternative understandings of the meaning of the act. In some cases the description in Acts may mean a baptism administered on a confession of Jesus as Lord and Christ (cf. Acts 22:16), or it may be a general characterization of the baptism as related to Jesus and not a formula pronounced at the baptism. In the later history the only formula regularly attested as pronounced by the administrator includes the triune name, but in Matthew it too may be descriptive rather than formulaic. If Matthew 28:19 is not a formula, then there is no necessary contradiction to the description “in the name of the Lord” in Acts and Paul" (Ferguson, p. 136, qtd in http://lhim.org/gladtidings/articles/Is_Matthew_28:19_Authentic_or_a_Forgery_by_Rev__Sean_Finnegan_issue_106.pdf)
This also is merely huff and puff passed off as hard evidence.
Huff and puff?? Notice Ferguson who you cited via Finnegan uses the conditional word “may” and he isn’t sure if Mat 28:19 is a formula, or not. You claim it to be clear yet offer up an expert who says it is not clear.
I wrote:
” that the Holy Spirit is an object of worship, to be prayed to”
You responded : The body of the Christian is called the "temple" of the Holy Ghost:
I’m not sure what you are getting at. God and Christ both have scriptural titles of divinity, are worshipped and prayed to. Where is similar done for the Holy Spirit?
1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
This is a direct comparison of the human body with the temple of Jerusalem which was resided in by God Himself, not any created being, and the body of a Christian is also called interchangeably by Paul "The temple of God."
1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
This cannot be so if God does not actually dwell in us, but only the Holy Spirit, a "force" or an angel.
I understand all of that but am not sure as to what your point is.
The Holy Spirit can be blasphemed against, and this, unforgivable:
Mat_12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
This cannot be so if the Holy Spirit is merely a "force" or an angel. I’m not so sure I can agree because of agency.
Here, Paul quotes the Old Testament:
"Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years." (Heb 3:7-9)
Paul quotes God in the Old Testament, but ascribes it to the Holy Ghost. This cannot be so if the Holy Spirit is merely an "object," or an angel.
In Isaiah, the Holy Spirit is differenciated from the other members of the Trinity:
Isa 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
This cannot be so if the Holy Spirit is merely a "force," since it would be like saying "God and His Force hath sent me."
There is an even larger body of scripture dealing with the Holy Spirit that we have not considered. Some appear to be written as metaphor, many appear to describe the Holy Spirit as more of a presence/force/fluid, others describe it in personal terms.
Because scripture doesn’t give the Holy Spirit divine titles as is does for God and Christ, because scripture doesn’t show the Holy Spirit being worshipped and prayed to as is done for God and Christ, and because there is no clear equating of the three as is done for God and Christ in John 1, the entire body of scripture must be considered and inferences made as to the nature of the Holy Spirit. This was my original point, scripture isn’t as clear as many want it to be concerning the nature of the Holy Spirit and therefore the Trinity.
The LDS, and other anti-Trinitarian groups, are by definition not part of the Body of Christ, although they always make demands that they be considered so, despite their attacks not only on Christian doctrine but on every aspect of the Body, such as what you have done with the scripture. No Christian is going to let go of such vital doctrines just to appease heretics.
We Christians are not obligated to acknowledge the heterdox, but are commanded, in fact, to do the opposite.
2Co 11:12-13 And what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
Agency applied to scripture would permit an angel, or other spirit being to act on behalf of God and if you lie to the spirit you lie to God.
If you refer to the Holy Spirit as an "angel" or a "spirit being," then you ascribe to Him personhood. If these verses prove personhood, then you cannot explain away those passages which prove divinity as an example of His objecthood.
Thank you. Finnegan cited them I believe primarily to dispel accusations that the Great Commission was an insertion circa 4th century. I’ve never suggested that and from the outset indicated a belief that the words are contained in the original Gospel manuscript. Your reference to the Apostolic Fathers is probably due to my above editorial mistake.
You are shifting goal posts. You denied that the verse: "Go ye therefore and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost" was genuine. The quotes by the Church Fathers are either direct quotes of that verse going back to the first century, or baptismal instructions based on that verse using the pattern of "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." The quote from Finnegan was only to explain why the Apostles summed up the name of Baptism in Christ, rather than saying Father, Son and Spirit all the time, in the book of Acts. This also was part of your attack on the genuiness of that verse. All this talk about you not denying the great commission, baptismal rites, yada yada yada, have nothing to do with what you originally wrote and what I responded to. Daniel1212 gave a similar response, also quoting the same Fathers (though he had a few extra).
Ferguson’s quote doesn’t contain citations but probably comes directly, or indirectly from J. Crehan,
What citations? What quotes? The quotes of the Church Fathers? I did indeed cite them, and Daniel cited them and expanded on them. You can use either newadvent.org or ccel to read them for yourself.
The reason speculative language is used by Finnegan and Ferguson is likely due to there being no examples in scripture or early Apostolic Fathers of such a baptismal rite.
What exactly are you defining as a "Baptismal rite"? Multiple quotes from the Fathers are, in fact, describing baptismal rites, in what name they should be said in (Father Son and Holy Spirit), and how the person ought to be dipped, or sprinkled, depending on the availability.
As for "speculative language," how about you quote Finnegan and make clear what you are talking about and what you are disputing? If it is on the genuineness of that verse, then, no, Finnegan never expresses doubt on the validity of that verse.
2 Co 13:14 does not establish divinity of the Holy Spirit because it does not rule out agency… power of attorney.
Are you even conscious? Read the verse:
2Co 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.
What would the Holy Spirit be doing operating as an agent here? What is He agencying? Fellowship? Or is this another one of your "editorial mistakes"?
The scholars I would cite are:
So your sources range from a hundred years ago to 40 years ago? Can you name any contemporary scholar who would claim that the verse in Matthew is not genuine and why, exactly, they do so?
...and Ferguson uses speculative language of “may” throughout his explanation. From Ferguson:
And do you have anything stronger than citing a "may" in proving that the verse in Matthew is not genuine?
I understand all of that but am not sure as to what your point is.
Is that all you have to say about it? If the Holy Spirit is called God again and again, how can you understand it and then not comment on it?
Because scripture doesn’t give the Holy Spirit divine titles as is does for God and Christ, because scripture doesn’t show the Holy Spirit being worshipped and prayed to as is done for God and Christ, and because there is no clear equating of the three as is done for God and Christ in John 1, the entire body of scripture must be considered and inferences made as to the nature of the Holy Spirit.
Your original point is false, since it stands on disputing the validity of certain verses and ignoring lots more.
Let's cut to the chase.
After all is said and done and read and studied; do YOU consider the Holy Spirit to be 'devine'?