The Nicene Creed is not Christian

[StanJ]

StanJ,

Is it your position that Jesus was telling his disciples to go around and lay hands on people in Matthew 28 when he told them to make disciples by baptizing? In the absence of any reference to laying on of hands, the Holy Spirit falling in power, tongues or anything else of that nature, I think we just have to assume baptism means...baptism. Especially in light of the half dozen other passages in Acts that speak of baptism that clearly are referring to being immersed in water as a plea for cleansing and reception of the Holy Spirit. Again, I don't think any first century reader would look at this passage and conclude that this meant they were to allow Peter to put his hands on them so they could receive a spiritual baptism. Also, Peter said this promise is for everyone. Is this your practice of bringing people into the church...laying your hands on them so they will be baptized in the Spirit? Whatever this verse is teaching (I contend its water baptism), its clearly saying that the promise is for all people and all generations. I don't see anything about praying a sinners prayer here, or receiving the Holy Spirit merely due to mental acceptance of an idea. Clearly something is to be done....repentance and ___________________ (you insert laying on hands, Ill insert water baptism). Yet that is not what we see in most Western churches today. No call to repentance. No call to immersion (or laying on of hands). Just an individualized, personal prayer that does not involve anyone else and demands no public display or life change. This is is not what the Scriptures teach...even if we accept your notion that baptism means something other than the basic first century understanding and practice of Christian baptism.

No I don't believe so, other wise He would have said lay hands, not baptise, and it's the Holy Spirit that baptizes so I doubt it would be in His name in addition to the other two. What I find interesting is that all Biblical records afterwards don't really reflect that command. Usually in whatever fashion, it is in Jesus' name alone. I don't believe we should EVER assume what the Bible says, but seek it our and exegete it properly.

 

[OzSpen]

Who needs human reasoning when one has Christ, who needs human reasoning when one has accepted the Holy Spirit, the comforter who teaches us all things, who needs human reasoning when one has the risen lord , the living God and teh Spirit of truth, you cant "reason" God.

But than if you dont have these what is there??

In all His Love

You and I both need human reasoning to engage in basic communication on this forum. Ever heard of the need for semantics in how we communicate. It's basic!

Oxford dictionaries give the meaning of 'semantics' as:

'The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them' (source).

You have used logic in the semantics of this sentence, but I don't think you understand what you do with reasoning in an endeavour to communicate on this forum. Without logic, reasoning and semantics, you and I would not be able to make sense in communicating with each other.

Oz

 

[mjrhealth]

You still have not answered my question of how one can do a defense (apologia) of the faith without engaging in reasoning.

I didnt know God needed me to defend Him, im sure He is quiet capable of defending Himself.

 

[Born_Again]

That is an interesting verse.
We modern Christians think that Paul was referring to the Bible, of course.
But that is not possible. The Bible did not exist when Paul wrote that letter to Timothy.

Out of curiosity, what is your definition of "Modern Christian"?

 

[OzSpen]

I didnt know God needed me to defend Him, im sure He is quiet capable of defending Himself.

It seems as though you are not reading the whole Bible.

What do you think 1 Peter 3:15 (ESV) means?

but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect (1 et 3;15 ESV)

 

[Born_Again]

It seems as though you are not reading the whole Bible.

What do you think 1 Peter 3:15 (ESV) means?

Well, as I read it, it says we are to defend Him. But do it in love, as an example of Him. I personally think being an example of Him on Earth is the best way to defend Him and show who He is.

 

[OzSpen]

Well, as I read it, it says we are to defend Him. But do it in love, as an example of Him. I personally think being an example of Him on Earth is the best way to defend Him and show who He is.

Brother in Christ,

1 Peter 3:15 (ESV) states:

but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

Being an example in love does not address the content of this verse because it deals with providing a defense to 'anyone who asks'. Opening the mouth and defending the faith is required when such a person asks for a reason for the hope that you have. How is it possible for a person to know of your hope (in Christ) if you have not been speaking of him. Living a life of love is critical. But the Greek apologia (defense) involves more than a loving presence. It requires active engagement verbally, by way of a defense.

You don't seem to be liking this dimension of Christianity.

 

[Wormwood]

No I don't believe so, other wise He would have said lay hands, not baptise, and it's the Holy Spirit that baptizes so I doubt it would be in His name in addition to the other two. What I find interesting is that all Biblical records afterwards don't really reflect that command. Usually in whatever fashion, it is in Jesus' name alone. I don't believe we should EVER assume what the Bible says, but seek it our and exegete it properly.

I am trying to follow what you are saying here without much success. Are you saying that baptisms in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit are water baptism, but baptism in the name of Jesus as we see in Acts 2 is a spirit baptism and not a water baptism?

This approach seems convoluted to say the least if this is your proposal. The fact is, in Matt 28 and Acts 2, there is an expectation for people to respond in a certain way. The disciples were to go, teach and baptize in Mat 28. The hearers were to repent and be baptized in Acts 2. It makes no sense to me for Peter to tell the people to respond in a certain way if this baptism doesn't include a response...but is something God does TO them quite separate from anything they do.

Also, I have looked through half a dozen popular commentaries. I see no scholar that claims that Acts 2:38 is referring to only a spiritual baptism that is in no way related to water baptism. Every one affirms that the baptism in question is water baptism, although they may disagree as to the importance of water baptism as it relates to forgiveness of sins. I think if your idea on this passage was plausible according to the grammar and first century understanding, there would be more scholars in agreement with what you are proposing. Here are just a few commentaries I have examined:

[SIZE=medium]Water baptism is closely connected with the bestowal of the Spirit in 2:38 (‘And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, England: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 155.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Clearly, however, both baptism and receipt of the Spirit are normative to the experience of becoming a Christian believer.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]John B. Polhill, Acts, vol. 26, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 117.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Now Peter instructed his audience to follow a similar course, except this baptism would be “in the name of Jesus Christ.” They would be baptized now as a response of allegiance to the risen Lord. This repentance and baptism would also bring forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Dennis Gaertner, Acts, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1995), Ac 2:37–40.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]A Christian should be baptized to be a follower of Jesus Christ, for baptism is the sign indicating that a person belongs to the company of God’s people.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]Repentance, baptism, and faith are theologically related. When the believer who repents is baptized he makes a commitment of faith. He accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior and knows that through Christ’s blood his sins are forgiven.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]Simon J. Kistemaker and William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, vol. 17, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 105.[/SIZE]

 

[DogLady19]

You need to reread my beginning of this thread. You are restarting all over.

Many of these discussions go in circles... I was agreeing with most of what you said... was that a mistake?

 

[Joyful]

Many of these discussions go in circles... I was agreeing with most of what you said... was that a mistake?

Here is what you agreed on. Not mine, friend.

Wormwood, on 04 Aug 2015 - 3:01 PM, said:

Joyful,

The point is that Jesus is clearly teaching his disciples (and us) that being his follower isn't about fancy titles and lording authority over others. He is not teaching that there are none who function as teachers in the body of Christ. Clearly there are dozens of passages that show that not only does the Church have teachers, but that it is a very important role that should be taken seriously. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit empowers some to function as teachers. Therefore, not only should we listen to teachers, but we should recognize that they are one of the ways in which the Holy Spirit edifies the Church. It is wise to learn from godly teachers in the past and present, and arrogant to think that no one else has anything to teach you about living the Christian life or understanding the Scriptures.

Again, the point here is that God uses teachers and we should listen to them. Yet, teachers that seek after titles, power and lording authority over others is inconsistent with the teaching of Christ and no one should seek the role of being a teacher for the sake of vain self-glory and titles. Make sense?

your comment:

Well put! Thank you...

As the book of John points out, sheep recognize the voice of their shepherd... We need to listen to teachers, but we should be so devoted to knowing Jesus' voice that we recognize a false teacher when we hear one.

 

[StanJ]

I didnt know God needed me to defend Him, im sure He is quiet capable of defending Himself.

How exactly is He going to do that, if WE won't be faithful to open our mouths?

“When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.”

It is right for me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my heart and, whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God’s grace with me.

 

[StanJ]

Its "reasoning" that has caused so much diviision amongst the denominations. The OT was the law, it was the flesh it was the "OLD WINE" the NT is all the Spirit it is the Holy Ghost it is Christ it is the new wine.

In all His Love

Actually it is the LACK of being REASONABLE that causes division. Is 1:18 from the KJV, conveys settling a matter. That can ONLY happen if all parties are open to hearing God.

 

[OzSpen]

Its "reasoning" that has caused so much diviision amongst the denominations. The OT was the law, it was the flesh it was the "OLD WINE" the NT is all the Spirit it is the Holy Ghost it is Christ it is the new wine.

In all His Love

But you have not given up reasoning in these 2 sentences. Why are you denigrating reasoning when you continue to use it to make your points? Your view on reasoning sounds contradictory to me!

 

[mjrhealth]

Reason God, how does one argue God, God is, Jesus is, the Holy Spirit is, The truth is, you cant argue the truth. One day walking down the street asking probably too many questions as I used to do, He told me to stop trying to figure Him out, so I did, there was no reasoning. God is Truth God is right we are all wrong. Why do Christians Have to reason, do they not have Christ for if they Had Christ they would have the truth for Jesus is the truth in Him there is no lie. Are you going to reason with Christ, I dont. He is right I am wrong.

In all His Love

 

[OzSpen]

Reason God, how does one argue God, God is, Jesus is, the Holy Spirit is, The truth is, you cant argue the truth. One day walking down the street asking probably too many questions as I used to do, He told me to stop trying to figure Him out, so I did, there was no reasoning. God is Truth God is right we are all wrong. Why do Christians Have to reason, do they not have Christ for if they Had Christ they would have the truth for Jesus is the truth in Him there is no lie. Are you going to reason with Christ, I dont. He is right I am wrong.

In all His Love

But in making this statement, you are using your own reasoning ability, which the Lord has given you. To refute your view of not need to reason about God, you provide rational arguments. I don't buy them, but you are still using reasoning. Try any discussion without the use of reason. I wish you luck!

 

[Wormwood]

As the book of John points out, sheep recognize the voice of their shepherd... We need to listen to teachers, but we should be so devoted to knowing Jesus' voice that we recognize a false teacher when we hear one.

I agree Joyful. But that is different than what you were saying earlier. This was all brought about by you saying that reading Calvin is a waste of time. Are you saying he was a false teacher?

 

[Joyful]

I agree Joyful. But that is different than what you were saying earlier. This was all brought about by you saying that reading Calvin is a waste of time. Are you saying he was a false teacher?

Definitely. He was a false teacher. He was a murder. What kind of Christian is it who kill anyone for whatever the reason?

Jesus says we know them by their fruit. He did not have spirit of Jesus. He hated his enemy. Jesus says to love your enemy. His fruit was hate.

 

[Wormwood]

I agree that Calvin was a flawed man and I do not agree with some of his teaching. I also think his actions in the death of his adversary are loathsome. However, David was also a murderer, as was Paul (at least an accomplice to murder). We shouldn't be so quick to throw away a person's life work because of a single act. The fact is, Joyful, we have teachers and that is a good thing. I think that is what people were trying to communicate to you earlier as you were making it sound as if we don't need any teachers at all. The Bible rejects this claim you made. Jesus was not arguing that we don't need teachers. He was saying that his followers should not seek after titles and power over others.

 

[OzSpen]

Definitely. He was a false teacher. He was a murder. What kind of Christian is it who kill anyone for whatever the reason?

Jesus says we know them by their fruit. He did not have spirit of Jesus. He hated his enemy. Jesus says to love your enemy. His fruit was hate.

In fact, Joyful, someone who was a murderer was a man after God's own heart. I'm speaking of King David: 'And when he had removed him, he raised up David to be their king, of whom he testified and said, ‘I have found in David the son of Jesse a man after my heart, who will do all my will' (Acts 13:22 ESV).

And David was an adulterer and murderer (2 Samuel 11 ESV). So, in spite of a person's sinful actions, they can be people of God.

Yes, we can know a person's life by its fruit. I remember David by the fruit of what is contained in the Book of Psalms, a psalter of praise and thanksgiving to God. Much of this poetry is from the pen of David.

I find it somewhat contradictory that you reject the ministry of teaching but you are on this forum promoting your own variety of teaching. Isn't that somewhat contradictory?

As for Calvin, I'm not supportive of all of his theology, but in spite of his agreeing to the killing of the heretic, Servetus, that does not make Calvin's fruit to be that of hate. He acted in a particular way towards a person at that time, of which I do not approve, towards a false teacher. Calvin had many other teaching moments where his ministry was that of edification.

Have you had any stumbles in your Christian walk? I have had in mine. Be careful in your judgment!

Oz

 

[Born_Again]

Brother in Christ,

1 Peter 3:15 (ESV) states:

Being an example in love does not address the content of this verse because it deals with providing a defense to 'anyone who asks'. Opening the mouth and defending the faith is required when such a person asks for a reason for the hope that you have. How is it possible for a person to know of your hope (in Christ) if you have not been speaking of him. Living a life of love is critical. But the Greek apologia (defense) involves more than a loving presence. It requires active engagement verbally, by way of a defense.

You don't seem to be liking this dimension of Christianity.

Oz....

Do what? What about what I said gave you the idea I didn't like something? I gave an opinion. I even inserted a smiley. (generally indicates a degree of happiness) So my reply is this..... . I don't normally do this on here but I must..--------------> HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!