u/Plymouth_Angel

Tithing is not a command for Christians given anywhere in the New Covenant. If I am mistaken to please show me the verse where Christians are commanded to pay a tithe. The idea that the tithe was 10% of your monetary salaried or waged income was simplified from earlier non-Biblical European traditions and then popularised in the 1830's by Joseph Smith of the Mormons, from then it was quickly adapted by the Seventh Day Adventists (both sects today are worth many billions, some say about $300 Billion), and from the late 1800's it was adopted by a wide range of evangelicals, so that today many sects from Calvinists to Pentecostals and Charismatics claim that they pay tithes. This post is not asking for scriptural proof for "giving," it is entirely focused entirely upon Biblical tithing. If you quote Genesis 14, are you then saying that the Abrahamic Covenant applies today so that Christians must keep that too and offer burnt offerings (Genesis 22:13)? Is the New Covenant unable to fully save us and to Christ's work Christians today ought to keep additionally the Abrahamic Covenant? Bit if you believe that the tithing commands of the Old Covenant apply today, then they paid three not a single tithe (Deuteronomy 14:20-29) of agricultural produce (not money) and only from only the land of Israel, with a 7 and 50 year cycles of non-tithing. But people today do not do this in evangelical Churches, nobody does this today, they instead follow the greatly simplified system popularised by Joseph Smith. Modern Day tithing is both unbiblical and it is also a scam for grifters stealing from their congregations.

[supprimé]

The baptismal formula is in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This is rejected by Oneness Pentecostals (Apostolics) who claim that the formula is "Lord Jesus Christ" or some similar formula of words in Aramaic or Hebrew. Here are some notes of mine where I defend the Trinitarian position against Oneness claims. I hope that I have made a clear thesis statement.

1. The exact wordings and even the Greek prepositions differ widely between these so called Oneness baptismal proof texts found at Acts 2, 8, 10, and 19.

 

At Acts 2:38 we read ***“in (***ἐπὶ epi) the name Jesus Christ,”

at Acts 8:16 and 19:5 we read; ***“in (***εἰς eis) the name Lord Jesus,”

and lastly at Acts 10:48 we read; ***“in (***ἐν ev) the name Lord.”

 

But if a baptismal formula were really being given here then it would not differ so widely between its various usages in Acts 2, 8, 10 and 19. The only sensible explanation is that the word “name” (onoma) means “authority,” as in “stop in the name of the law” and that this is how Luke is using this term “onoma.” Notice also that word “name” (onoma) is used this way by Luke in Acts 4:7, where here it is juxtaposed with the word ‘power’ to symbolise authority.

 

2. The reference to the Holy Spirit in Acts 19:2-3, further confirms Matthew 28:19 as baptism being upon the authority of the one God who is not simply Jesus, but is Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Paul meets certain disciples of John, and asks if they received the Holy Spirit since they believed. When they reply that they don't know who the Holy Spirit is (Acts 19:2), Paul then immediately asks how then were you baptised (verse 3). He did this because he knew that the name ‘Holy Spirit,’ is referred to at the Matthew 28:19 baptismal command. So if “Jesus Christ” is the proper baptismal formula, then Paul's question “into what then were you baptised?” does not make any sense, because it would be a complete change of subject from his question.

3. To baptise upon the name of the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19), is to baptise according to Acts 2:38, because both these passages imply the authority for baptism.

4. You cannot really understand the baptismal formula, apart from a study of the Aaronic blessing formula at Numbers 6:24-26. This specific blessing was used by the priests constantly in the Old Testament Scripture, but when it’s used, it is simply referred to in a shortened summary form. This is why we read of Levi blessing the people “in his name” (Deuteronomy 10:8), and the priests being commanded “to bless in the name of the LORD,” (Deuteronomy 21:50) or “to give a blessing in his name forever.” (1^(st) Chronicles 23:13). So God does not need to slavishly repeat the entire Aaronic blessing word for word every time that it was used, and this shortened form “in his name” or “in the name of the Lord” refers directly back to the Numbers 6 formula. So you can see that your four baptismal passages in the book of Acts, mirrors exactly the way in which the Aaronic blessing formula was used and was referred to in the Jewish cultural usage.

5. My main problem with the Apostolic position on baptism are the implications that Trinitarians aren’t saved, so Martin Luther, John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards are now in hell. However, in my opinion our love towards God counts more than our own religious works, as I’m certain that God will recognise sprinkling, immersion or pouring, and even if no formula or an incorrect formula of words is used. What happens if a sincere apostolic, is plunged under the water, but the minister then absently mindedly misquotes the baptismal formula. Is that Apostolic now lost for all eternity because of the minister’s mistake, which he being under the water did not hear? I find the ‘hard hearted dogmatism,’ which claims that God will damn a man to hell upon a mere technicality, objectionable. Love is not enough, and neither is the cross or even the reception of the Holy Spirit in Oneness. They claim that our works can save us, because our relationship with God starts and is even based upon our own deeds; namely correct baptism and also speaking in tongues. So the God of Oneness only loves us through our own good works for him, and yet my Bible says that God loves and justifies the ungodly and not the Godly:  see Romans 4:5.

I would be a Trinitarian, in my late 60s with a BD (Hons) in Divinity from Aberdeen University in Scotland. Would any modalist (Oneness) or Jehovah's Witness (i.e. INC, or similar) debate me? I am interested in opposing the Oneness claim that the Father was manifest in flesh.

This is part 2 of a Trinity vs UPCI discussion on the Incarnation.

Religious Folk in Dialogue 765: UPCI in Texas USA on the Incarnation 2 of 2

This is part 1 of a Trinity vs UPCI discussion on the Incarnation:
Religious Folk in Dialogue 764: UPCI in Texas USA on the incarnation 1 of 2

My thesis is that God the Father sent the Son of God into this world at the incarnation. I say this as many modalists, who today are known as Apostolics or Oneness Pentecostals, will instead claim that God the Father came into this world and that the Son of God was created in Mary's womb and was then indwelt by the incarnate Father. If any modalists are reading this, may I ask them to please explain:

1. 1st John 3:8 "the Son of God was manifested"
2. 1st John 4:9 and 14: Where God the Father sent his SON INTO this world.
3. Isaiah 9:6: States that the "Son is given" it does not state that the Father was given. The hebrew "Everlasting Father" or "Father of Eternity" does not mean God the Father, as nobody in church history in either Christianity or Judaism who is educated has ever claimed that. It just means that the Son who is given is either the author or the possessor of eternity (because he made it - this world) or more likely both.
4. 1st Timothy 3:16 in the KJV is an obvious mistranslation, even though the world Father is missing from this verse, Apostolics will misreading this verse as: "God the Father was manifested in the flesh."
5. The speaker at John 5:18 is the Son of Man, who is identified as such at John 8:28. Well at John 5:18 we read that: "The Father who sent me bears witness of me."

I will try to respond to comments, but if anyone is interested, I can also speak on microphone in zoom, skype, whataspp, messenger or discord: however do record all verbal discussions. I am on the UK time zone. I am a firm Trinitarian since 1989, when I left the Oneness sect (Bibleway Church) and became a Trinitarian. Robert

Religious Folk in Dialogue 889: Pentecost TV on Facebook (part 1 of 2)

My thesis is that God the Father sent the Son of God into this world. For example 1st John 3:8 states that: "for this reason the Son of God was manifested," and 1st John 4:9 to 13 states that the Father sent his Son into this world, please note that verse 13 states "Father." As a Trinitarian I would like to debate any Oneness Pentecostal / Apostolic who denies this and believes that in the incarnation the Father came into this world. Please may I point out that your favourite proof texts do not prove this, at Isaiah 9:6 we read that the "Son was given" - I'd ask given by whom. Also the word "Father" is completely missing from the KJV rendering of 1st Timothy 3:16, which is based upon a scribal error anyway. Any takers. I hope that I have fully complied with rule 4 and made a clear thesis statement.

My name is Robert, I am 65 and I live in Plymouth a city in the south-west of England. I was briefly a baptised Oneness Pentecostal way back in the 1980s, I wrote a tract offering £1,000 if anyone could prove the Trinitarian baptismal formula from the book of Acts. To cut a long story short, Christ opened my heart and I left Oneness (Apostolic movement) becoming a firm Trinitarian in 1989. Since then I have evangelised non-Trinitarians, mostly Jehovah's Witnesses, I have some 5,000 recordings of some of these discussions. So here is the thesis of this post. I believe that the one (YHWH) God of the Bible exists personally, distinctly and eternally as the Father, and as the Son and as the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, whom God the Father sent into this world and then the Son of God (who is deity) took on a human nature at the incarnation. So having outlined my beliefs, is there anyone who would be willing to discuss this with me on whatsapp, messenger, zoom, skype or discord? If you PM me I can give you my whatsapp number, I will try to reply to very short text posts here, however aspects of the Trinity is easier to discuss on Microphone or Face to face rather than via text, especially as longer posts don't get read and both sides often end up copying and pasting without even reading the other persons posts.

I speak to Rye Congregation in the UK about lesson 19 of Enjoy Life Forever. But amazingly this elder cannot even attempt to answer my first question, which was: "are there any True Christians in other religious groups?" We then discuss paragraph 1 on the subject of "truth" and I point out that their concept of truth has changed radically over the past century:

Debating Jehovah's Witnesses 3,423: Rye Congregation on Enjoy Life Forever

Here is a half hour discussion with a British Jehovah's Witness elder, I raise lessons 7, then 19, and finally 13, from their book: Enjoy Life Forever, but it then becomes a Monty Pythons sketch of endless deflection as this JW does everything he can to avoid answering questions about the text of his book: Debating Jehovah's Witnesses 3,422: Kilburn Congregation in London