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.
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,
How dare you create division rather than harmony with these elitist exclusive "one true church" groups, rather than being like the poster who creates harmony by rejecting evidence for the Trinity by arguing texts that evidence Deity of the Spirit of God do not evidence personhood, and ones that evidence personhood do not testify to deity, and if one testifies to both then it does not count since some scholars reject it, or another could refer to a created person/being, even though neither any individual or collective texts teach that the Spirit was created, but was there in the beginning of creation. (Gn. 1:2)
More from another site:
B. Masculine pronouns are used in reference to the Holy Spirit despite the fact that "Spirit" (Greek--pneuma) is neuter (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:8, 13f, Greek--ekeinos, literally, that One).
C. The Holy Spirit and Jesus are both our helper/lawyer between us and God: Jesus sent "another comforter": ("allos parakletos") Jn 14:16 Greek "allos" another of the same kind. Even if you reject that Jesus is God, another of the same kind as Jesus must be a person! The Arian view would require the word "hetros" another of a different kind. So the Holy Spirit is a person who is a "comforter, helper, advocate". Used of the Holy Spirit 5 times in John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7; 14:16 and once of Christ in 1 John 2:1. When we combine this with the fact that Jesus said the Holy Spirit was another helper, Gr "allos", "another of the same kind", the personality of the Holy Spirit is reinforced even stronger. The Greek word "parakletos" that is used in all these verses was always applied to persons, not things. So the fact that both Greek words "allos" and "parakletos" TOGETHER in the same phrase in reference to Jesus is irrefutable proof that the Holy Spirit is portrayed as a person. In Acts 9:31 Christians were "walking in the fear of the Lord and the comfort of the Holy Spirit." The word, "Comfort" [parakleses] is the verb form of the noun parakletos.
D. The Holy Spirit can be fellowshipped: The Holy Spirit can be fellowshipped: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all" 2 Cor 13:14. We are not saying that the word fellowship itself, demands the Holy Spirit is a person, but that a word that normally, but not always implies personality, is used in conjunction with two other known persons. E. The "Holy Spirit" is in contrast to "unholy Spirit", who are persons: The very term "Holy Spirit" is used in contrast to "unholy spirits" like demons and the devil: Mark 3:22-23; Mt 12:32; 1 Tim 4:1; 1 Jn 3:24-4:6. If "unholy or evil spirits" are persons, then the Holy Spirit is a person. This point applies to Jehovah's Witnesses but not Christadelphians, because the later do not even ascribe personality to the devil or demons, but view them as the personification of sin and disease respectively. The Spirit The Holy said: "set Barnabas & Saul apart for ME for the work to which I have called them." Acts 13:2 The Spirit the Wicked said to them: "I know Jesus and Paul, but who are you" Acts 19:15
II. The Holy Spirit simply must be a person and is much more than God's power or active force: A. The Holy Spirit is outright said to have a mind which energy does not. B. The Holy Spirit experience emotions, slights and injuries which energy does not. C. The Holy Spirit evaluates, reasons and chooses with intelligent freewill which energy cannot do. D. The Holy Spirit originates intelligent thought and speaks which energy cannot do. E. The Holy Spirit assists us in ways only another person could. F. The Holy Spirit takes actions of intelligent freewill, which energy cannot do. G. The Holy Spirit bears witness in a pattern that always involves a person:
III. The Holy Spirit is a divine person, like the Father A. The Holy Spirit is outright Called God:
B. The Holy Spirit shares Qualities that only God possesses:
C. The Holy Spirit is divine in power:
D. The Holy Spirit is divine in character:
More: http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-holy-spirit-personality-deity.htm
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.
So you say if a person professes a belief that Jesus Christ died as atonement for our sins, is baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and that if such person does not share your exact understanding of the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit that such person is damned?
I previously wrote: 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.
You replied:
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.
We haven’t gotten to that point of identifying which scriptural references to the Holy Spirit are more suggestive of a conscious being versus a dynamic force/presence.
Most scriptural references to the Spirit suggest a dynamic force/presence. In just the book of Acts there are sixty two references to the Spirit. Eighteen are in terms of a conscious being with the remainder being more suggestive of a dynamic force/presence. However, once the entire body of scripture dealing with the Holy Spirit is assembled for consideration, then we can make that determination. Not such an easy task, is it? Fortunately, I believe Christ gave us a strong hint concerning which way to go by speaking of the Spirit mostly in terms of a conscious being.
I previously wrote: 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 replied with:
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.
Where did I deny authenticity? I didn’t. I merely pointed out that controversy exists concerning whether it is an exact quote of Christ, or a paraphrasing reflecting late 1st century church practice.
I only brought up the controversy because you placed such weight upon it as proof of the Trinity doctrine. If you place weight on it you need to defend it, which you attempted by citing scholars who admit to the controversy and state that not all New Testament scripture is authentic. You cited Ferguson within the Finnegan article as follows: (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)
Do you now wish to retract your scholarly citation?
You wrote:
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.
No I was merely pointing out that controversy exists surrounding why if Christ used the threefold baptismal formula as part of the Great Commission, why no New Testament writer records use of the threefold baptismal formula. You proceed to respond by citing a source that on p15 asserts not all New Testament scripture is authentic:
We are fortunate today to live in a time when the New Testament text is over 99% established based on centuries of discover ies, cataloging, and comparisons.Do you wish to retract the scholars you cited?
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).
No! Not at all. You quoted Ferguson within the Finnegan article without qualification. I’ll repost your quoted scholar:
"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)He offers a theory with no evidence to back it up which is why he couches it in speculative language.
Are you now wishing to retract that Ferguson quote you made?
I wrote: 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"?
Just what Ferguson, the scholar you quoted described which was the person performing the baptism did so in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit while the person being baptized made a confession of baptism in Christ. That is the rite I was referring to.
If your guy Ferguson is correct, then why don’t the Apostolic Fathers mention that the person being baptized had to confess to doing so in Christ’s name? Instead, the Apostolic Fathers mention what the person performing the baptism said and did without indicating a confessional type statement being necessary on the part of the person being baptized. I don’t recall any of the early Fathers recording a confessional consistent with Ferguson on the part of the person being baptized. Later ones may have.
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.
But where do any other them describe what was required of the person being baptized as your guy Ferguson speculated?
Do you wish to retract your citation?
As for "speculative language," how about you quote Finnegan and make clear what you are talking about and what you are disputing?
From p15 of Finnegan:
However we work out the seeming contradiction, our difficulty here does not warrant changing what Scripture says to read more smoothly.
That was just before he states not all New Testament scripture is authentic.
Do you wish to retract your scholarly citation?
If it is on the genuineness of that verse, then, no, Finnegan never expresses doubt on the validity of that verse.
Yet he admits controversy and apparent contradiction. Ferguson’s theory that you quoted was couched in cautionary language.
Do you wish to retract your citation?
I wrote: 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:
You must not be married. Having a civil discussion with you is most difficult.
Yes I read it. Since we haven’t ruled out agency on the part of the Holy Spirit we would need to do so. To you, all of this seems easy since you grew up accepting it from birth without ever assembling and grappling with the entire body of scripture but it took the Church centuries to work through all of this and arrive at a doctrine.
That having been said, I agree 2 Co 13:14 shows Paul in his benediction advancing a step towards doctrine from where he had been in 1 Co 16:23 “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.” In 2 Co 13:14 The triadic elements are now present in Paul’s benediction where they were not present in his first letter to the Corinthians. We can clearly see Paul’s developing understanding of the nature of God..
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 snide tone of your comment tells me that you remain out of your league. Otherwise, you would understand that Paul, the disciples and other apostles were Jews and Jewish tradition was that agents assisted God in the creation. This belief took two parts; First, there were conceptual emanations from God such as Wisdom (Prov 8), Word and the Spirit (Gen 1). Law is also an emanation but is closely related to Word. Prov 8 says Wisdom was present at the creation assisting God and in verse 30 says “Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him.” (KJV).
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?
Why? Didn’t your scholar Finnegan in 2009 admit to an apparent contradiction and that New Testament scripture is not 100 percent authentic.?
Didn’t Finnegan in turn quote Ferguson who you also directly quoted as offering up a theory using speculative language without evidence to support his theory? Is it really Ferguson’s theory or did Ferguson copy it from an earlier writer? Didn’t I say in my previous post that your guy Ferguson probably got his theory from J. Crehan, "Early Christian Baptism and the Creed, (1950) p.25, p.76., p.79-p.84? As I recall from Crehan, the Ferguson quote reads like a direct copy of Crehans theory. I’d hate to think you quoted a plagiarist.
Would you like to retract your citations?
Your original point is false, since it stands on disputing the validity of certain verses and ignoring lots more.
No. You simply refuse to recognize that New Testament writers developed over many decades material for the Trinity and that it took the Church centuries to formalize it as doctrine. Because you accepted the doctrine at VBS years ago doesn’t mean it is as simple as you want to believe it is.
Just as many of Christ’s own disciples may have died not having a full understanding of the nature of God as revealed to them, so too is the case for persons coming from a non-Trinitarian background. Your smug condescension is going to be very offputting to them.
I’m on a business trip and don’t know what my schedule will be like to continue this discussion.