Old Testament Trinity Challenge

Originally posted by divegeester
This is a debating forum Grampy Bobby. You have made a claim in this thread that Jesus diciples baptised "in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit". I have contested this claim, given you my explaination why I contest it and the scripture to support it.

Now you are having a pouty hissy-fit and refusing to engage in the discussion ...[text shortened]... laim that the diciples only ever baptised "in the name of Jesus Christ", and not as you claim above?

Originally posted by sonship (OP)
"Some select statements of checkbaiter form the basis of discussion here:

Is the Trinity revealed in the Old Testament ?"
___________________________________________

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 2)
"7 Baptisms In The Bible"

"(3) In the baptisms of early Church Age believers, the water identified new believers with the name (and thus the character) of God (Matthew 28:19), signifying the new life of discipleship in Christ. The early believers were identified with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. Real Baptisms were an actual identification with something other than water." (1 of 7)

http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/7-baptisms-in-the-bible/

"Is Water-Baptism Required for Christians?"

http://ichthys.com/mail-water%20baptism.htm
___________________________________

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 2)
Originally posted by divegeester
"No, they didn't. Show me one scripture where the disciples baptised in the "name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit". Just one will do"

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20)
______________________________________

Comment:The Lord Jesus Christ gave this command to His disciples [students/followers] who obeyed His command because they accepted His authority. If they had balked and said, "No way, Lord" [2nd Class Conditional in the Koine Greek: "If and it's not true"] how would the Gospel [the good news of salvation] have spread so rapidly in the ancient world which they were instrumental in evangelizing? If you're unable to accept the words of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself it's highly doubtful that you'll ever accept His words quoted to you by anyone on this online spirituality forum. Perhaps you should consider making an appointment with your own pastor/teacher to privately discuss this gnawing question. I hope the following footnote also proves helpful:

Footnote: “There are 2 identifications in the NT as related to baptizo: (1) Ritual (2) Real. Ritual identification is the act of immersing or submerging oneself in water in the ritualistic sense such as Pre-Canon Christian water baptism, Baptism of Jesus, Baptism of John. Real identification is the act of identifying one thing with another as in the Baptism of the Spirit, Baptism of Moses, Baptism of Fire, Baptism of the Cross. Depending upon the context of the passage then, baptizo can refer to a ritual identification or real identification. The passages which speak of the Baptism of the Spirit in 1 Cor. 12:13 and Eph. 4:5 speak of real identification." (Pastor/Teacher Bill Wenstrom, Pages 5-6)

http://www.wenstrom.org/downloads/written/doctrines/pneumatology/ministry_of_the_spirit.pdf
_______________________________

Originally posted by divegeester (Page 5)
"You are not a pastor Grampy Bobby and I do not consider you an authoritative voice on scripture as your interpretations are, in my opinion, full of errors. I've pointed one of these out for the purpose of debate and you simply refuse to discuss. This is a habit many Christians use in here to avoid discussing topics they are either uncomfortable with, unable to defend or because they simply don't like the individual poster. It's quite a hollow way to behave."
_________________________________

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 5)
"Yes, precisely why I've encouraged you to seek answers to your several doctrinal questions from your own pastor/teacher rather than persit in engaging others here with an exercise in futility. Once you've received clarifications from your pastor/teacher please post them in this public spirituality forum. Until then I'll respond to your cue by delaying my replies to your posts which are not in alignment with absolute truths revealed in the Word of God. Objective discussion is one thing; endless emotionally driven harangues quite another."
_______________________________

Originally posted by divegeester
"I'm disagreeing with you, why on earth would I want to go and ask some pastor about that? You are avoiding the point I brought up, I know it and you know it."
______________________

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"Disagree all you wish. What's become apparent in recent weeks is that you've flatly refused to accept the authority of the Word of God on the sole basis of your subjective personal opinions. Present your problematic issues to someone you respect and whose authority you accept. I hope you'll come home to your senses. With FMF missing in action and not here to support you for the past two weeks concerning your unresolved issues with an unbeliever's separation from God for eternity, it appears you're now sublimating these frustrations on other sound biblical doctrines. Please speak with your own pastor/teacher for your own and for your family's sake."
_____________________________________

If and when you calm down and regain your objectivity, whether it takes a day or a week or a month or a year, I'll reply further.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by sonship (OP)
"Some select statements of checkbaiter form the basis of discussion here:

Is the Trinity revealed in the Old Testament ?"
___________________________________________

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (Page 2)
[b]"7 Baptisms In The Bible"

"(3) In the baptisms of early Church Age believers ...[text shortened]... ain your objectivity, whether it takes a day or a week or a month or a year, I'll reply further.[/b]

Oh dear, it's going to be thread full of repeat copy/pastes is it.

Nevertheless, my point remains that this is a debating forum Grampy Bobby. You have made a claim in this thread that Jesus diciples baptised "in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit". I have contested this claim, given you my explaination why I contest it and the scripture to support it.

When you want to address this point, be sure to let me know. Thanks.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
You say the Trinity is revealed in Genesis by looking deeper into the typology, but is there not the inherent danger of 'over study' of the text and of seeing things that are not there? (Genuine question).

A comparison i would make (apologies,as it's the first one that comes to mind) would be to suggest that the Trinity is also revealed in Shakes ...[text shortened]... n transformed of spirit, who's victory over the evil Macbeth marks a restoration of moral order.

You say the Trinity is revealed in Genesis by looking deeper into the typology, but is there not the inherent danger of 'over study' of the text and of seeing things that are not there? (Genuine question).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure, there could be. That is why we pay close attention to plain teaching. Typology is useful to confirm plain teaching.

There is also somewhat of a drawback in being so cautious that this is used as an excuse to never see deeper into God's revelation. So I think balance is what we should seek.

In the church history many saints took these typological visions as life changing wisdom and helps to a deeper appreciation of Christ. In short the teaching is to help us to live in God's economy.


What helps us to live in God's economy is always good.


A comparison i would make (apologies,as it's the first one that comes to mind) would be to suggest that the Trinity is also revealed in Shakespeare's Macbeth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think the parallel is exactly the same. For Shakespear's play is not the oracles of God.

It may be legitimate to say, perhaps Moby Dick, or Macbeth has some arguable theological overtones. Many literary works probable do.

I don't think that is the same as exploring the Word of God.

By the way, it is not mandatory that someone see that Joseph is a type of Christ. If you find that to be some kind of distraction, simply put it aside. There is no reason to oppose the matter.

I compare everything like this to the plain teaching to see if it is life imparting, helpful, exalting of Christ, and increases my love for the Lord Jesus.

The messages I heard on the Trinity being revealed in the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob with Joseph definitely were powerful positive influences on my Christian walk.

If you are interested in hearing those many messages, I can link you to archived radio programs which included major portions with discussions of those messages.

At the Living Stream Ministry Website there is this link:

http://www.lsmradio.com/rad_archives.html


There in the middle you may select a book of the Bible expounded by Witness Lee from his Life Study of the entire Bible. Under Genesis there are archived portions of his spoken messages with some discussion and commentary by various co-workers who participated in those gatherings.

Here is the list of messages from Genesis. You may go down through the TITLES and select one program or more to listen to.

http://www.lsmradio.com/audio/genesis.html


For here also we find the 'Father' in King Duncan and the 'Son' in Malcolm (the rightful heir to the throne) and Macduff surely is a man transformed of spirit, who's victory over the evil Macbeth marks a restoration of moral order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I said above, this kind of literary symbolism found in works of art - music, plays, novels, movies, etc. I simply don't place on the same level as the Word of God in the Bible itself.

I am not against seeing this symbolism. I simply do not place it on the same level as the Bible.

Originally posted by sonship

There is also somewhat of a drawback in being so cautious that this is used as an excuse to never see deeper into God's revelation. So I think balance is what we should seek.

Yes, that seems reasonable.

Originally posted by Suzianne
And you say you don't believe in a Trinity.

I don't. If anything I'm more Unitarian I suppose. But I'm not Unitarian either. I just do not accept that there are three distinct people in the godhead.

Originally posted by divegeester
I don't. If anything I'm more Unitarian I suppose. But I'm not Unitarian either. I just do not accept that there are three distinct people in the godhead.

I suspect that you only expect me to quote Witness Lee. However I'd like to let some other old brothers weigh in. To one degree or another these voices would agree with Lee on some major points.

W.H. Griffith Thomas (A.D. 1861 - 1924 )
(Founder of Dallas Theological Seminary)
[My bolding]

The threefold distinction in God, which is expressed by the word "Trinity," is the attempt of man to conceive and express the meaning of the Infinite God in terms of Jesus Christ, and we believe that the use of the phrase, "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," is the very best rendering of the mystery that can be given ... . The true meaning of the Trinitarian doctrine, therefore, is not separate spheres of Divine operation in connection with each Person, but the united and inclusive operations of the three Persona in one God .... When then turn to St. Paul, we find substantially the same set of ideas. The language about the indwelling of Christ and of the Spirit is practically identical .... We are therefore not at all surprised at the variation of the theological expression connected with the Holy Spirit. Sometimes He is regarded as a separate Personality within the Godhead, having self-consciousness, separate from and yet connected with Jesus and the Father. At other times the Spirit is used for the Name of God's own personal activity, as He dwells in the soul of man. But however difficult it may be to express the difference between Christ and the Spirit regarded as within God Himself, no difficulty must allow us to ignore the plain teaching of the New Testament and personal testimony of Christian consciousness. In our Lord's discourse, while He distinguishes between the relations of the Father and the Spirit with Himself to the disciples, yet there is no essential difference or separation. Whether the Father lives or the Son lives; whether the Father comes or the Son comes; whether the Father gives the Spirit or the Son gives Him, the essential relationship is the same. But while closely and intimately connected, Christ and the Spirit are never identical ....It is essential to preserve with care both sides of this truth. Christ and the Spirit are different yet the same, the same yet different. Perhaps the best expression we can give is that while their Personalities are never indentical, their presence always is."

From The Holy Spirit of God, W.H. Griffith Thomas, pp 138,142-144, as quoted in "The Testimony of Church History Regarding The Mystery of the Triune God", William Freeman, Stream Publishers, pgs. 35,36.

Originally posted by sonship
I suspect that you only expect me to quote Witness Lee. However I'd like to let some other old brothers weigh in. To one degree or another these voices would agree with Lee on some major points.

[b] W.H. Griffith Thomas (A.D. 1861 - 1924 )
(Founder of Dallas Theological Seminary)
[My bolding]

[quote]

The threefold distinction in God, whic ...[text shortened]... ry Regarding The Mystery of the Triune God"[/b], William Freeman, Stream Publishers, pgs. 35,36.[/b]

I get accused of using human arguments but this is just that. He is talking about the changing personality of God. I'm sorry sonship it just isn't scriptural.

"I am the Lord and I change not."
Mal 3:6

Originally posted by divegeester
I get accused of using human arguments but this is just that. He is talking about the changing personality of God. I'm sorry sonship it just isn't scriptural.

"I am the Lord and I change not."
Mal 3:6

Reading Thomas again here carefully, I don't see what you are objecting to.

But you mention Malachi 3:6.

I take this passage as God not changing in His moral being. In judgment, He will not change.

"And I will draw near to you in judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and against those who swear falsely and against those who oppress the hired worker for his hire, and the widows and the orphans, and those who turn the stranger aside, and who do not fear Me, says Jehovah of hosts.

For I, Jehovah, do not change, therefore you, O sons of Israel, are not consumed." (Mal. 3:5,6)

God gave Israel the law.
He would eliminate the sinning from their midst so that they would not be consumed.

Concerning the morality of the law God has not and will not change. He will have His judgment swiftly against:

sorcerers ,
adulterers ,
those who swear ,
those oppressors of hired workers, of widows, orphans and strangers, and have no fear of God.

All these transgressions were warned about in the law of Moses.
God has not changed in His attitude towards them.

But John 1:1,14 says that the Word that was with God and was God BECAME FLESH. And First Corinthians 15:45 says the last Adam [Christ] BECAME A LIFE GIVING SPIRIT .

So we should not take [b]"For I, Jehovah, do not change"{/b] to deny the incarnation of God or that Christ in resurrection became "pneumatic" in order to deal with our moral offenses and also impart Himself into man.

If the WORD was God and BECAME flesh than the unchanging God took upon Himself something that He did not have before. Otherwise it would not say He BECAME that. And the flesh (denoting the whole of human nature) is a created item. But God is eternally uncreated.

In one sense, yes, God does not change. But in another sense God passed through an economical process by which He could both redeem sinners and impart Himself into those redeemed.

Originally posted by sonship
Reading Thomas again here carefully, I don't see what you are objecting to.

But you mention [b]Malachi 3:6.

I take this passage as God not changing in His moral being. In judgment, He will not change.

[quote] "And I will draw near to you in judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against the adulterers and ...[text shortened]... economical process by which He could both redeem sinners and impart Himself into those redeemed.

Γινομαι and Christ’s “Becomings”
http://affcrit.com/pdfs/2005/01/05_01_gl.pdf

Originally posted by kevinlee123
Γινομαι and Christ’s “Becomings”
http://affcrit.com/pdfs/2005/01/05_01_gl.pdf

Thanks Kevin. This article which I have not read in a long time, I am sure will help me.

Here's a portion of it:

41
Volume X




No. 1




April 2005
Givnomai
and Christ’s “Becomings”
In at least twenty-seven passages that refer to the process that Christ went through in His incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, and in what He is in our salvation, the verb givnomai, “to become, to change in state, to come into existence,” is used. On the one hand, Christ is God, and the Bible states clearly that God is the same (Psa. 102:27; Heb. 1:12), that He does not change (Mal.3:6), that with Him there is no shadow cast by turning (James 1:17), and that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever (Heb. 13:8). On the other hand, the use of the verb givnomai in the New Testament with Christ as
the subject indicates that changes have taken place, particularly in John 1:14, “the Word became flesh,” and 1 Corinthians 15:45, “the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.” The reconciliation of these two views is the subject of this article. As we shall see, any reconciliation hinges upon our understanding of the meaning of
givnomai and its use in describing the processes of Christ ...

Thanks again. I need to review this.