The Nicene Creed is not Christian

[OzSpen]

Not on this issue.

1Jn_2:9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.
1Jn_2:11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.
1Jn_3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
1Jn_4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

ewq,

Where have I stated or indicated on this Board that I hate my brother? Why are you making this false accusation against me?

Oz

 

[Wormwood]

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

Oz,

Again, I find the notion of making a convert as a separate act from making a disciple to be quite unsubstantiated in Scripture. There is simply no indication anywhere that there is a process for disciple-making and a separate process for making converts. The whole purpose of "baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" indicates a person is being transferred into a relationship with the triune God. The early church understood this and it is why every new believer was baptized. They didn't reserve that for "making disciples." There are actually three participles - going, baptizing and teaching. Jesus is sending his disciples out into the world to spread the message and bring people into relationship with the triune God. It is mind-boggling to think that someone would see Matt. 28 as a very unique call that applies only to a particular practice of evangelism...disciple-making...but these commands don't apply to a form of evangelism that only intends to make converts. I have never heard anyone teach such an idea.

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

I think you are straining gnats here. Paul told the jailer how to be saved and taught them the Word of God. They were baptized as a result. Pretty much the formula Jesus commanded. Again, I think you are imposing lines between salvation and discipleship that do not exist in the Bible. Can a person be a Christ-ian and not be a disciple? The early Christians were called "followers of the Way." They were all disciples. No such thing as a saved, non-disciple. If there is, please show me the text.

Yes, they rejoiced they had believed in God. They didn't rejoice they had been baptized, nor did they rejoice they repented of their sins...does that mean neither of these are important? Of course not. The point is, belief is played out in baptism (and also repentance). There is a connection between belief and baptism that is very explicit in the book of Acts. Again, one has to ask themselves, "If baptism is merely a meaningless sign, then why did the early church put such emphasis on it and why were believers "immediately" baptized? Because it doesn't mean anything? Again, look at Romans 6:1-3, 1 Peter 3:21, and other such teachings in the epistles and decide for yourself. Either the authors were extremely poor communicators or salvation, remission of sins, dying with Christ, being clothed with Christ, etc. actually happen in the moment of baptism.

Remission of sins happens this way, according to 1 John 1:9, 'If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness'

1 John was written to Christians. It is talking about the false teaching of Gnosticism sweeping into the church. Gnostics taught that because the body was sinful anyway, it didn't matter what you did with it. The only thing that mattered was our knowledge (gnosis). John is telling believers that we are to walk as Jesus walked and when we sin, we need to confess it and turn from it...rather than imagining it doesn't matter or that sin doesn't exist in the presence of gnosis.

Titus 3:5 states, 'He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit'.

Yes, "by the washing of regeneration." Literally, the "bath" of regeneration. I think this is a clear reference to baptism.

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

Well, considering all believers were baptized, I don't think Paul would have to spell this out. He also doesn't mention anything about repentance in this passage. Does this mean we don't have to repent to receive the Holy Spirit either?

 

[ewq1938]

You cannot grieve and lie to an IT.

Yes you can.

 

[ewq1938]

You happen to be in error.

The meaning of 'infer' (dictionary.com) is:
3.to guess; speculate; surmise.
4. to hint; imply; suggest.

According to the dictionary 'infer' and 'imply' are synonymous terms.

Well according to that site there isn't a difference but that's not accurate.

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/infer

http://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/imply-infer/

Imply and infer are opposites, like a throw and a catch. To imply is to hint at something, but to infer is to make an educated guess. The speaker does the implying, and the listener does the inferring.
To imply is to suggest something indirectly. If you hand your friend a stack of napkins during dinner, you imply that she needs them. Things can imply, too, like a chimney that implies a fireplace.

Anyways, was just trying to help.

 

[ewq1938]

ewq,

Where have I stated or indicated on this Board that I hate my brother? Why are you making this false accusation against me?

Oz

To judge a brother or sister in Christ as not in Christ over a non-salvational issue is related to what those verses are talking about.

 

[OzSpen]

Wormwood,

Can a person be a Christian and not be baptised?

Oz

Oz,

Again, I find the notion of making a convert as a separate act from making a disciple to be quite unsubstantiated in Scripture. There is simply no indication anywhere that there is a process for disciple-making and a separate process for making converts. The whole purpose of "baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" indicates a person is being transferred into a relationship with the triune God. The early church understood this and it is why every new believer was baptized. They didn't reserve that for "making disciples." There are actually three participles - going, baptizing and teaching. Jesus is sending his disciples out into the world to spread the message and bring people into relationship with the triune God. It is mind-boggling to think that someone would see Matt. 28 as a very unique call that applies only to a particular practice of evangelism...disciple-making...but these commands don't apply to a form of evangelism that only intends to make converts. I have never heard anyone teach such an idea.


I think you are straining gnats here. Paul told the jailer how to be saved and taught them the Word of God. They were baptized as a result. Pretty much the formula Jesus commanded. Again, I think you are imposing lines between salvation and discipleship that do not exist in the Bible. Can a person be a Christ-ian and not be a disciple? The early Christians were called "followers of the Way." They were all disciples. No such thing as a saved, non-disciple. If there is, please show me the text.

Yes, they rejoiced they had believed in God. They didn't rejoice they had been baptized, nor did they rejoice they repented of their sins...does that mean neither of these are important? Of course not. The point is, belief is played out in baptism (and also repentance). There is a connection between belief and baptism that is very explicit in the book of Acts. Again, one has to ask themselves, "If baptism is merely a meaningless sign, then why did the early church put such emphasis on it and why were believers "immediately" baptized? Because it doesn't mean anything? Again, look at Romans 6:1-3, 1 Peter 3:21, and other such teachings in the epistles and decide for yourself. Either the authors were extremely poor communicators or salvation, remission of sins, dying with Christ, being clothed with Christ, etc. actually happen in the moment of baptism.


1 John was written to Christians. It is talking about the false teaching of Gnosticism sweeping into the church. Gnostics taught that because the body was sinful anyway, it didn't matter what you did with it. The only thing that mattered was our knowledge (gnosis). John is telling believers that we are to walk as Jesus walked and when we sin, we need to confess it and turn from it...rather than imagining it doesn't matter or that sin doesn't exist in the presence of gnosis.


Yes, "by the washing of regeneration." Literally, the "bath" of regeneration. I think this is a clear reference to baptism.


Well, considering all believers were baptized, I don't think Paul would have to spell this out. He also doesn't mention anything about repentance in this passage. Does this mean we don't have to repent to receive the Holy Spirit either?

 

[ewq1938]

I say yes. I have seen a person that was being witnessed to about Christ decide to accept Christ as Lord and Savior. No baptism happened at the time. There is a baptism of the Spirit but no one saw or spoke of this happening so I don't believe it did at the time of conversion. They were baptised a week later in water.

Wormwood,

Can a person be a Christian and not be baptised?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

To judge a brother or sister in Christ as not in Christ over a non-salvational issue is related to what those verses are talking about.

That's your imposition on my post. It is NOT my position.

To believe in the Trinitarian God of salvation and that belief is CORE Christianity.

When it comes to false doctrine, I am hating NOBODY. I'm following what John told me to do in Scripture:

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already (1 John 4:1-3 ESV).

I am being an obedient Christian when I test the spirits to see whether they are from God, the God revealed in Scripture, who is the Trinitarian Lord God Almighty.

You call that judgment and I hate a person. Your assessment is FALSE. I am following biblical instructions and you are NOT when you make this kind of false accusation against me.

Do you know what you have done? You have done the very thing about which you have accused me. You have judged me. You are acting as a hypocrite.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Yes you can.

That's not an adequate answer.

Please tell me of an impersonal IT that can grieve someone and lie about someone.

 

[ewq1938]

To believe in the Trinitarian God of salvation and that belief is CORE Christianity.

No, understanding the Trinity is not a core of Christianity. The core is Christ and accepting him as Savior. If a person is unsure or doesn't believe he is also God that is a separate, lesser issue as is misunderstanding what and who the Holy Spirit is and is not.

When it comes to false doctrine, I am hating NOBODY. I'm following what John told me to do in Scripture:

Scripture is often abused to justify bad behavior.

You call that judgment and I hate a person. Your assessment is FALSE. I am following biblical instructions and you are NOT when you make this kind of false accusation against me.

Do you know what you have done? You have done the very thing about which you have accused me. You have judged me. You are acting as a hypocrite.

Hardly. You are the one who judges your fellow brothers, and I spoke up against it. We ought not to treat each other in that manner, and justifying it by claiming denial of the Trinity equals worshiping the wrong God and Christ is ridiculous. We should honor Christ better in how we treat others, even those we disagree with. I mean, we are to love our enemies yet we are talking about a fellow member of the body of Christ!

 

[OzSpen]

Well according to that site there isn't a difference but that's not accurate.

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/infer

http://www.vocabulary.com/articles/chooseyourwords/imply-infer/




Anyways, was just trying to help.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary disagrees with you, with this definition of 'imply': 'to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement <rights imply obligations>'.

So this leading American dictionary indicates that to imply is to indicate something by inference.

Oz

 

[ewq1938]

That's not an adequate answer.

Please tell me of an impersonal IT that can grieve someone and lie about someone.

You have it backwards. The supposed evidence to determine personhood of the Holy Spirit is based on it being lied to and being grieved by others, not it lying or grieving others.

 

[ewq1938]

The Merriam-Webster dictionary disagrees with you, with this definition of 'imply': 'to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement <rights imply obligations>'.

So this leading American dictionary indicates that to imply is to indicate something by inference.
Oz

That source is also wrong. Infer and imply are opposites in meaning.

dictionary.com:

The use of infer to mean imply is becoming more and more common in both speech and writing. There is nevertheless a useful distinction between the two which many people would be in favour of maintaining. To infer means `to deduce', and is used in the construction to infer something from something: I inferred from what she said that she had not been well. To imply (sense 1) means `to suggest, to insinuate' and is normally followed by a clause: are you implying that I was responsible for the mistake?

This proves the original meaning is being altered by modern culture which is damaging to the word's original and true meaning.

 

[OzSpen]

I say yes. I have seen a person that was being witnessed to about Christ decide to accept Christ as Lord and Savior. No baptism happened at the time. There is a baptism of the Spirit but no one saw or spoke of this happening so I don't believe it did at the time of conversion. They were baptised a week later in water.

You and I are in agreement on this one.

Does that mean you reject baptismal regeneration?

 

[ewq1938]

You and I are in agreement on this one.

Does that mean you reject baptismal regeneration?

It depends on it's definition.

 

[StanJ]

Dost thou understandeth what thou writest?

yeseth!

 

[StanJ]

Again, I find the notion of making a convert as a separate act from making a disciple to be quite unsubstantiated in Scripture. There is simply no indication anywhere that there is a process for disciple-making and a separate process for making converts.

I suggest you read Luke 8:11-15 (NIV)

 

[StanJ]

No, understanding the Trinity is not a core of Christianity. The core is Christ and accepting him as Savior. If a person is unsure or doesn't believe he is also God that is a separate, lesser issue as is misunderstanding what and who the Holy Spirit is and is not.

Actually, to understand WHO Jesus IS, is at the core of accepting Him as our savior. If one does not CONFESS Jesus as the Christ, Son of God, Savior based on what ALL scripture reveals, then they don't confess the TRUE Christ.

The ROCK, was Peter's confession, NOT himself. Peter confessed who Jesus was, not having been told by anyone other than the Holy Spirit. Matt 16:14-16
If one does not understand what Jesus said here then one does not understand who God is. The LIVING God, is Jesus Christ.

 

[OzSpen]

No, understanding the Trinity is not a core of Christianity. The core is Christ and accepting him as Savior. If a person is unsure or doesn't believe he is also God that is a separate, lesser issue as is misunderstanding what and who the Holy Spirit is and is not.

Scripture is often abused to justify bad behavior.

Hardly. You are the one who judges your fellow brothers, and I spoke up against it. We ought not to treat each other in that manner, and justifying it by claiming denial of the Trinity equals worshiping the wrong God and Christ is ridiculous. We should honor Christ better in how we treat others, even those we disagree with. I mean, we are to love our enemies yet we are talking about a fellow member of the body of Christ!

1. Your fundamental error is understanding the nature of God, who is at the core of Christianity. The Trinitarian God, with Jesus as the God-man. is the one who is accepted as Saviour. You don't seem to get it that you can't believe in Jesus unless you understand which Jesus. Is he the unitarian Jesus or the Jesus who is a member of the Triune God.

2. Yes, Scripture is often abused to justify bad behaviour, which is exactly what you are doing. You are the pot calling the kettle black.

3. I'm not judging my brother and sister and causing me to be judged as a murdered. I told you what I was doing but you don't care to acknowledge what I did as one who is to 'test the spirits to see whether they are from God' (1 Jn 4:1 ESV). I found that this person was promoting a god who was not the God revealed in Scripture. The non-Trinitarian god promoted was a false God. It's about time you acknowledged the difference between being judgmental and testing the spirits to discern false doctrine. I was doing the latter.

4. In addition, you are being hypocritical. You are the one judging me, but accusing me of being a judge. Wake up to yourself and your false understanding of testing the spirits.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

You have it backwards. The supposed evidence to determine personhood of the Holy Spirit is based on it being lied to and being grieved by others, not it lying or grieving others.

You are correct. I did get it around the wrong way. An IT cannot be lied to with the effect of lying being acknowledged. An IT cannot be grieved by others and it cannot acknowledge that grief. A person can. Which is how the person of the Holy Spirit can respond.